Lb  r^-^-^'Sgei-'xi 


Stom  f ^e  i^i^tati^  of 

50equeaf  ^^  6)?  ^im  to 
t^  feifirari?  of 

Qbrincefon  C^eofogicaf  ^eminarg 

see 


FETICH  IN  THEOLOGY; 


DOCTRINALISM    TWIN  TO    RITUALISM. 


;^ 


JOHN    MILLER, 
Princeton,  N.  J. 


"  If  we  are  like  God,  God  is  like  tts.  This  is  the  fundamental 
pnnciple  of  all  religion  ....  Jacobi  well  says  :  '  We  confess ^  therefore^ 
to  an  Anthropomorphism  i?iseparable  fro?n  the  conviction  that  man 
bears  the  image  of  God  ;  and  jnaintain  that  besides  this  Anthropomor- 
phism, which  has  always  been  called  Theism,  is  nothing  but  ATHEISM 
or  FETICHISM.'  " — Dr.  Hodge,  Theol.  vol.  i.  p.  339. 


NEW   YORK: 
DODD    &   MEAD,  PUBLISHERS, 

762    BROADWAY, 
1874. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congi-ess,  in  the  year  1874,  by 

JOHX    MILLEE, 
In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congi'ess,  at  Wasliington. 


THE  MIDDLETON   STEnEOTTPE  COMPANY, 
GREENPORT,   LONG  ISLAND. 


PREFACE. 


For  thirty  years  or  more  the  author  has  been 
busy  upon  a  theory  of  Ethics.  He  has  subjected  it 
to  every  test.  If  it  is  false,  he  is  another  instance 
of  a  Ufe  wasted  by  error.  If  it  is  true,  it  justifies 
his  absences  from  the  pulpit ;  for  it  is  of  the  very 
essence  of  its  analysis  that  it  sets  at  rest  many 
of  the  questions  that  are  dangerous  in  our  best 
theology. 

The  author  confesses  that  indicia  of  his  special 
Ethics  led  him  to  entertain  the  scruples  which  this 
book  unveils,  and  made  disagreeable  to  him  doc- 
trines that  have  planted  themselves  in  our  common 
Calvinism.  But  these  same  indicia  pointed  up  into 
the  Bible,  and  gave  him  better  weapons  there  than 
the  novelties  of  an  unaccepted  system.  If  he  met 
error  by  his  philosophy,  he  would  have  to  carry  his 
philosophy;  and  that  might  be  harder  in  the  end 
than  to  crush  the  error.  As  a  better  polemic  he 
can  take  the  Scripture,  which  his  philosophy  sug- 
gests, and  employ  that  base  to.  fortify  his  argument. 
Thus  he  gains  two  things:  —  First,  a  conceded 
premise  instead  of  a  debated  one  ;  and  second,  a 
less  suspected  conclusion  ;    for  the   author,  having 

(5) 


6  Preface. 

denied  himself  the  pleasure  of  tying  "the  millstone 
of  his  philosophy  around  the  neck  "  of  his  theology, 
will  gain  in  his  philosophy  itself  by  showing  in  a  pre- 
liminary book  with  what  Scripture  certainties  his 
philosophy  affiliates  itself. 

Meanwhile,  the  rectification  which  this  book  at- 
tempts, is  the  main  grand  purpose  of  his  life  in  giv- 
ing away  so  much  of  its  history  to  ethical  investi- 
gation. 

JOHN  MILLER. 

Princeton,  March  13th,  1874. 


CONTENTS 


Page 
INTRODUCTION 15 


BOOK   I. 

Nothing  to  Worship. 

CHAPTER    I. 
A  God  all  for  Himself 19 

CHAPTER   II. 
A  God  whose  Will  is  the  Ground  of  Moral  Obliga- 
tion      20 

CHAPTER   III. 
A  God  the  Idea  of  whom  is  Innate 21 

CHAPTER  IV. 
A  God  of  whom  Vindicatory  Justice   is  a  Primordial 

Attribute 24 

CHAPTER   V. 
A  God  whose  Chief  End  is  to  Display  His  Glory 25 

CHAPTER   VI. 
A  God  whose  Universe  is  not  the  Best  Possible 26 

(7) 


8  Contents. 


CHAPTER   VII. 

Page 

A    God    Made    Responsible   for  Sin  by  a   Distinction 

BETWEEN  Preserving  and  Creating 27 

CHAPTER   VIII. 
Man's  Helplessness  not  Disinclination 29 

CHAPTER  IX. 
The   Faith   that    Saves   a  Man    not   in    its    Essence 
Moral SZ 

CHAPTER  X. 
Rationalism  an  Over-use  of  Reason , 37 


-^ — o- 


BOOK   II. 

Something  to  Worship. 

CHAPTER   I. 
Holiness 39 

CHAPTER  II. 
God's  Highest  End  not  Himself  but  His  Holiness —     41 

CHAPTER  III. 
The  Ground  of  Moral  Obligation  the  Excellence  of 
Holiness 42 

CPIAPTER  IV. 
A  God  who  does  Everything  for  His  Glory 43 

CPIAPTER  V. 
The  Idea  of  God  not  Innate 44 


Contents.  9 


CHAPTER   VI. 

Page 
Vindicatory  Justice   not  a  Primordial   Attribute  of 
God 46 

CHAPTER   Vn. 
The  Best   Possible  Universe 47 

CHAPTER   VHI. 
God    not    Implicated    with    Sin,   though    Preserving 
Providence    be  the   same    as  a  Continuous    Crea- 
tion      49 

CHAPTER   IX. 
The  Sinner's  Helplessness  Disinclination 51 

CHAPTER   X. 
Saving  Faith  in  its  Essence  Moral 52 

CHAPTER   XL 
Eationalism  not  too  much  Reason 53 

>  «    ^ — »-< 


BOOK   III. 

Fetich. 

CHAPTER   I. 
Idolatry  a  Universal    Sin 57 

CHAPTER   II. 
What  is  Idolatry  ? 5^ 

CHAPTER   III. 
Fetich 60 

I* 


lo  Contents. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Page 
The  Two  Attributes   of   Fetich   the  Two  Attributes 

OF     THE    above-described    TEN    DOCTRINAL    PROPOSI- 
TIONS      60 

CHAPTER   V. 

How   BEST   TO    MAKE    THIS   APPEAR 62 


BOOK   IV. 
Fetich  in  Practice. 

CHAPTER   I. 
The  Bible  a  Fetich 64 

CHAPTER   11. 
Prayer  a  Fetich 65 

CHAPTER   in. 
Seriousness  a  Fetich 66 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Profession  a  Fetich 67 

CHAPTER  V. 
Almsgiving  a  Fetich •. 69 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Preaching  a  Fetich 70 

CHAPTER  Vn. 
Faith  a  Fetich ■. 77 

CHAPTER  Vin. 
Repentance  a  Fetich 82 


Contents.  1 1 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Page 
The  Rationale  of  Fetich 83 


BOOK   V. 

Fetich  in  Doctrine. 

CHAPTER  I. 

A  God  all  for  Himself 88 

§   I.  Dr.  Hodge's  Statement  of  the  Doctrine 88 

§  2.  Dr.  Hodge'' s  Contradiction  of  his  ozvn  Doctrine 89 

g  3.    Texts  to  Sustain  the  Error. 91 

g  4.    Texts  to  Refute  the  Error. 94 

§  5.  Argtiment from  Reason 95 

^  6.   The  Doctrine  Fetichism 98 

CHAPTER   H. 

The  Will  of  God  the  Ground  of  Moral  Obligation..  100 

§  I.  Dr.  Hodge'' s  Statement  of  the  Doctrine 100 

§  2.   Dr.  Hodge'' s  Conti-adictions 104 

§  3.  Arguinent  from  Reason 107 

§  4.    The  Error  Fetich no 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Idea  of  God  Innate no 

§  I.  Dr.  Hodge's  Statement  of  the  Doctrine no 

§  2.  Dr.  Hodge's  Cojttradictions 112 

§  3.  ArgtiJtient  from  Scripture 114 

§  4.  Argument  from  Reason 1 16 

§  5.    The  Idea  Conceived  of,  a  Fetich 122 

CHAPTER   IV. 
Vindicatory    Justice    as  a  Primordial    Attribute    of 

God 123 

§   I.  Dr.  Hodge'' s  Statement  of  the  Doctrine 123 


1 2  Contents. 

Page 

§  2.  Dj:  Hodge's  Contradiction 128 

§  3.   The  Scriptures  that  Di:  Hodge  Quotes 131 

§  4.  Scriptures  that  Refute  the  Error. 131 

§  5.  Argument  from  Reason. 132 

§  6.   The  Error  Fetich 137 

CHAPTER   V. 

God's  Highest  End  to  Display  His  Glory 143 

§  I.  Dr.  Hodge's  Statement  of  the  Doctrine 143 

§  2.   Contradictions 144 

§  3.  Scriptures 144 

§  4.  Argument  from  Reason.     Holiness  the  Highest  End...  145 

§  5,  Everything  Else  Fetich 146 

CHAPTER   VI. 

This  Universe  not  the  Best  Possible 147 

§  I.  Dr.  Hodge  States  the  Doctrine 147 

§  2.   Contradictions 148 

§  3.   Scriptures 14.9 

§  4.  Reason 150 

§  5.  An  Orthodox  Optitnism 153 

§  6.   The  Opposite,  Fetich 154 

CHAPTER   VH.' 
God's   Providence    not   a   Continuous    Creation,  else 

God  the  Author  of  Sin 155 

§  I.  Dr.  Hodge'' s  State??ient  of  the  Doctrine 155 

§  2.  Dr.  Hodge's  Contradictions 156 

§  3.  Arg7iment from  Reason 158 

§  4.    The  Doctrine  Fetich 164 

CHAPTER   VHI. 

Man's  Heltlessness   not  Disinclination 165 

§   I.  Dr.  Hodge'' s  Statement  of  the  Doctrine 165 

§  2,  Dr.  Hodge's  Immediate  Contradictions 166 


Contents.  1 3 

Page 

§  3.  Scripture 171 

§  4.  Argument  from  Reason 172 

CHAPTER   IX. 

Saving  Faith  not  in  its  Essence  Moral 180 

§  I .  Dr.  Hodge'' s  Statement  of  the  Doctrine 1 80 

§  2.  Dr.  Hodge''s  Contradictions 189 

§  3.  Argument  from  Scripture igi 

§  4.  Dr.  Hodge'' s  Argument  frojn  Reason 195 

§  5,    The  True  Doctrine 199 

§  6.  Anything  else  Fetich 204 

CHAPTER   X. 

Rationalism  an  Over-use  of  Reason 212 

§  I.  Dr.  Hodge's  Statement  of  his  oivu  Doctrine 212 

^  2.  Dr.  Hodge's  Exposition  of  his  ozuji  Statement 212 

§  3.    The  Doctrine  False 216 

^  4.  Its  Mischiefs 219 

§  5.    The  Scriptures  that  Dr.  Hodge  Quotes 224 

^  6.  Injury  of  Dr.  Hodge'' s  Teaching  to  Dr.  Hodge  hhn- 

self 225 

§  7.  Argu7nent  front  Reason 230 

§  8.  Dr.  Hodge'' s  Contradiction 23 1 

§  9.   The  Whole  System  Fetich 232 


BOOK   VI. 
Fetich  in  Order. 


CHAPTER    I. 
As.    Ritualism     Shrivels     Doctrine,    so    Doctrinalism 

Shrivels  the  Church 234 

CHAPTER   II. 
The  True  Idea  of  the  Church 236 


14  Co7itents. 


CHAPTER   III. 

Pagb 
Dr.  Hodge's  Idea  of  the  Church 240 

CHAPTER    IV. 
Dr.  Hodge's  Argument  for  his  Idea   of   the  Church. 

Its  Falseness 246 

CHAPTER  V. 
Practical    Mischiefs    of    Dr.    Hodge's    Idea    of    the 

Church 254 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Doctrinal    Mischief     of    Dr.    Hodge's    Idea     of    the 

Church 257 

CHAPTER  Vn. 
On  the  Question,  What  is  a  True  Church  of  God?...  258 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  Rev.  Charles  Hodge,  D.  D.,  in  his  late 
work  on  ''Systematic  Theology,"  teaches,  (i)  that 
God  has  made  everything  for  Himself,  (2)  that  the 
will  of  God  is  the  ground  of  moral  obligation,  (3) 
that  the  idea  of  God  is  innate,  (4)  that  vindicatory 
justice  is  a  primordial  attribute  of  God,  (5)  that 
God's  highest  end  is  to  display  His  glory,  (6)  that 
the  universe  is  not  the  best  possible,  (7)  that  pre- 
serving Providence,  explained  as  a  continuous  crea- 
tion, is  unworthy  of  God  and  makes  Him  responsible 
for  sin,  (8)  that  the  helplessness  of  the  sinner  is 
not  disinclination,  (9)  that  saving  faith  is  not  of  its 
essence  moral,  and  (10)  that  Rationalism  is  an 
over-use  of  reason. 

These  doctrines  are  singularly  stern.  If  they 
are  true,  they  belong  to  the  list  of  which  Peter 
speaks  (2  Peter,  iii.  16),  in  which  are  ''things  hard 
to  be  understood,  which  they  that  are  unlearned  and 
unstable  wrest  unto  their  own  destruction  : "  and  if 
they  are  untrue,  they  are  grossly  bewildering  and 
pernicious;  like  weights  to  a  drowning  man;  for 
they  load  with  difficulty  the  very  points  of  tempta- 
tion in  the  gospel. 

(15) 


1 6  Introduction. 

Believing  them  to  be  untrue,  the  author  knows 
that  he  would  be  indulged  even  by  Dr.  Hodge  in 
trying  to  make  that  appear ;  and  that  such  a  polemic 
as  Dr.  Hodge  should  be  the  most  tolerant  of  an 
attempt  to  clear  orthodoxy  of  growths,  parasitic  or 
diseased,  that  might  seem  to  be  penetrating  toward 
the  life  of  the  faith  ;  but  it  will  not  appear  so  plain 
to  anybody,  and  did  not  to  the  writer  himself,  that 
these  growths  should  be  traced  particularly  to  Dr. 
Hodge.  Why  not  treat  them  as  of  the  Reformed 
belief.-*  This  was  a  present  impulse  in  a  scheme  to 
notice  them.  But  our  study  determined  differently. 
Dr.  Hodge,  as  the  advanced  writer,  is  the  only  au- 
thority in  such  things  who  brings  them  all  together. 
Turrettin  has  but  five  or  six  of  them.  The  Re- 
formed belief  has  none  of  them  ;  that  is,  they  are 
nowhere  all  enforced,  and  they  are  somewhere  one 
by  one  refuted.  They  have  been  forming  scatter- 
ingly  like  crystals  in  a  vase.  Dr.  Hodge  has 
helped  the  process.  And  now,  when  people  wake 
to  what  is  going  on  in  their  religion,  would  it  not 
be  a  sort  of  mock  respect  to  appear  not  to  see  what 
hand  has  shapened  them  the  most ;  and  what  book 
has  made  them  easiest  to  refute  by  the  very  har- 
mony that  appears  among  them  ? 

If  they  are  God's  truth  (as  they  ought  to  be,  to 
be  so  authoritatively  set  forth),  no  apology  will  save 
the  critic  from  a  most  eccentric  fate  ;  but  if  they 
are  a  human  error,  no  apology,  of  course,  is  needed. 
The  best  defence  will  be  an  industrious  discussion. 
Dr.  Hodjie  has  so  hic,h  a  name,  and  stands  so  emi- 


Introdiictioii.  i  y 

iiently  among  the  preservers  of  the  faith,  that  we 
are  sure  of  our  instinct  when  it  commands  us  to 
make  no  excuses.  If  Dr.  Hodge  were  a  common 
man,  we  might  less  ludicrously  express  our  regret ; 
but  as  he  is  just  who  he  is,  every  word  of  reserve  is 
but  that  much  labor  lost ;  and  every  syllable  of  at- 
tack must  keep  itself  in  countenance  only  by  the 
purest  reasoning. 


BOOK   I. 

NOTHING    TO    WORSHIP. 

To  begin,  therefore  : — What  possibility  of  Wor- 
ship does  Dr.  Hodge  leave  for  those  attributes 
of  God  that  come  within  the  sweep  of  his  ten  prop- 
ositions ? 

Worship  is  from  the  Anglo-Saxon  weordk,  and 
implies  that  worth  is  essential  to  worshipfulness. 
If  I  turn  a  peasant  into  his  closet,  and  expect  him 
to  worship,  I  must  either  give  him  a  string  of  shells 
or  some  like  idolatrous  cheat  ;  or  depend  upon  his 
admiration.  To  adore  is  to  admire.  Admiration 
must  be  intelligent,  and  must  be  able  to  give  a  rea- 
son for  itself.  *'  Ye  worship  ye  know  not  what " 
w^as  the  crime  of  the  Samaritans.  And  there  is 
added  the  articulate  rule — "  The  true  worshippers 
shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  We 
are  not  now  asserting  that  Dr.  Hodge's  doctrines 
are  untrue,  but  simply  arguing  that  they  are  not 
worshipful. 

CHAPTER   I. 

A    GOD    ALL    FOR    HIMSELF. 

A  MAN  all  for  himself  would  be  an  intolerable 
nuisance.  I  do  not  assume  that  God's  self  is  not 
so  different  from  man's  self  as  to  be  to  God  what 

(19) 


20  Nothi7ig  to    Worship.  [Book  I. 

man's  self  has  no  right  to  be  to  man.  That  we  will 
treat  hereafter.  I  only  say  that  God's  making  all 
things  for  Himself  is  nothing  to  worship.  We  ad- 
mire the  opposite.  If  God  is  to  be  worshipped,  we 
must  admire  him  somewhere  outside  of  this.  And 
as  this  fills  a  wide  periphery,  and  God's  chief  end 
makes  a  great  figure  in  His  temple,  it  is  hard  to 
see  what  there  is  outside.  A  stone  in  a  furnace, 
filling  all  but  the  further  corners,  would  make  a  man 
feel  that  there  was  but  very  little  opportunity  for 
fire ;  and  should  make  him  think  that  if  he  could 
take  all  out,  and  put  in  something  that  would  burn 
and  warm,  he  would  be  nearer  the  view  for  which 
the  furnace  was  brought  into  being. 

A  God  all  for  Himself,  therefore,  I  do  not  yet 
aver  to  be  a  mistaken  Deity ;  but  I  offer,  at  this 
preliminary  stage,  as  having  anything  but  a  claim 
in  Himself  to  adoration. 


CHAPTER   II. 

A    GOD    WHOSE   WILL    IS   THE    GROUND    OF    MORAL    OBLIGATION. 

The  stride  is  immense.  What  God  does  every- 
thing for  sweeps  the  universe  ;  but  what  He  builds 
morality  upon  reaches  yet  further.  How  can  I 
worship  without  getting  something  intelligibly  grand 
in  both  these  particulars  }  Cut  off"  in  the  direction 
of  the  first,  how  cruel  if  I  should  be  disappointed  in 
the  latter  !  And  yet,  how  can  I  worship  anything 
excellent  in  God,  if  there  is  no  such  thing  by  a 
character  in  itself,  but  all  is  made  excellent  starkly 


Chap.  III.]  God  an  Innate  Idea.  21 

by  a  decision  of  His  will.?  (Dr.  H.,  Theol.,  vol.  i. 
p.  405.) 

To  say  that  he  is  the  Father  of  our  spirits,  and, 
therefore,  the  norm  of  all  possible  perfection,  is 
true,  of  course  ;  but  that  is  not  the  issue.  A  rule 
and  a  ground  are  very  different  ideas.  The  ground 
of  anything  being  what  it  is,  is  the  causal  or  directly 
efficient  reason.  The  ground  of  moral  obligation 
is  that  which  breeds  the  obligation,  or  makes  it 
moral ;  and  as  there  is  no  exception  in  the  thought, 
it  does  not  apply  to  some  forms  of  moral  obligation, 
as,  for  example,  certain  positive  precepts  ;  but  it 
applies  to  all  morality  and,  of  course,  to  the  moral- 
ity of  the  Most  High. 

How,  therefore,  is  the  peasant  to  proceed  when  he 
encounters,  in  worshipping,  these  barren  thoughts } 
Is  he  to  do  without  any  conception  of  excellency  t 
How  is  that  possible }  Is  he  to  admire  by  the  help 
of  faith  1  glorifying  and  blessing  with  no  power  to 
give  a  reason  t  That  has  been  forbidden  (Jo.  iv.  22). 
These  dogmas  are  cruel  things,  when  they  are 
rooted  in  the  very  bosom  of  truth  ;  coolly  stated  by 
those  whom  it  is  an  eccentricity  to  doubt ;  and, 
yet,  with  consequences  involved  utterly  alien  to  any 
adoration. 

CHAPTER  HI. 

A    GOD   THE    IDEA   OF   WHOM    IS    INNATE. 

A  DOCTRINE  coldly  metaphysical  cannot  affect 
a  peasant    man    one  way  or  the   other.      But  Dr. 


22  Nothing  to    Worship.  [Book  I. 

Hodge  hastens  to  explain.  He  says,  The  idea  that 
is  innate  is  that  of  Entire  Supremacy  (Theol.,  vol. 
i.  pp.  195,  199).  The  peasant  man  will  wonder, — 
What  is  that  to  me  }  A  God  entirely  good — that 
I  can  comprehend  ;  or  a  God  entirely  perfect ;  but 
a  God  simply  sovereign — that  may  be  either  here 
or  there.     The  Devil  might  be  simply  sovereign. 

Recollect,  these  are  absolute  utterances. 

(i)  A  God  all  for  Himself,  (2)  a  holiness  made 
such  at  will,  and  (3)  a  Deityship  whose  stark  idea 
is  that  He  is  Supreme,  are  weighed  speeches,  given 
out  in  dogmatical  discourse,  and  all  we  have  to  go 
for,  as  yet,  in  reverential  service. 

And  the  latter  is  more  a  grief,  because  we 
encounter  it  in  flying  disordered  from  the  former. 

To  look  into  the  sky,  and  say,  God  is  holy  by  a 
holiness  made  such  by  His  will,  drives  me  by  a  sort 
of  instinct  to  put  more  body  into  the  thought  by 
talking  of  His  nature.  Dr.  Hodge  does  this  (vol. 
i.  p.  406). 

1.  But  will  and  nature  are  different  things. 
They  may  agree.  But  the  propositions.  Holiness 
is  made  holiness  by  will,  and,  Holiness  is  made  holi- 
ness by  His  nature,  are  not  identical.  A  law  by 
the  will  of  Nero  and  a  law  from  the  nature  of  Nero 
might  be  just  the  opposite. 

2.  But  if  there  were  no  difficulty  of  that  sort, 
still  how  could  we  manage  ?  Nature,  as  a  ground, 
breeds  the  same  sense  of  vacancy.  If  the  nature  of 
God  is  the  ground  of  moral  obligation,  it  is  either 
excellent  or  it  is  not.     If  it  is  not,  how  can  we  wor- 


Chap.  III.]      A  God  Priviordially  Revenge  fid.  23 

ship .?  If  it  is,  then  it  is  excellent  either  by  an 
excellence  that  is  excellent  in  itself,  or  by  an  excel- 
lence that  is  made  excellent  by  the  nature  of  the 
most  High.  If  it  be  an  excellence  that  is  excellent 
in  itself,  then  the  nature  of  God  is  not  its  ground. 
But  if  it  be  an  excellence  that  is  made  excellent  by 
the  nature  of  God,  then  the  peasant  is  back  where 
he  began.  How  can  he  admire  God  if  He  has  no 
excellence  that  is  an  excellence  in  itself,  and  none 
that  does  not  become  such  by  His  sovereign  na- 
ture .'' 

3.  A  rude  heart,  however,  might  hold  on  to 
some  idea  of  worthiness,  and  push  off  much  of  this 
reasoning  as  metaphysical  conceit.  Dr.  Hodge 
does  not  allow  us  to  do  this.  "  The  idea  of  God  is 
innate."  The  nest  must  not  only  be  broken  up,  but 
the  bees  sticking  to  it,  and  desiring  to  rebuild  where 
it  was,  must  be  carried  off  to  another  place.  Excel- 
lence is  not  to  be  my  thought  at  all,  but  supremacy 
CPP-  195?  197)-  The  thoughts  innate  in  my  spirit 
are  ''responsibility"  and  ''dependence"  (pp.  199, 
200).  And,  like  the  Darwinian  scheme,  I  can  see 
order  in  the  links — that  is.  Authority  everywhere ; 
(i)  authority  as  the  end,  (2)  authority  as  the  rule, 
and,  now,  (3)  authority  as  the  innate  idea ;  but  I  do 
not  see  where  the  bee  can  rebuild  her  nest.  Au- 
thority, whether  bad  or  good,  is  not  a  worshipful 
thought ;  and  I  can  clearly  see  its  joints  in  a  dog- 
matic scheme,  but  not  its  service  to  a  habitual  devo- 
tion. 


24  Notlmig  to   Worship.  [Book  I. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

A     GOD     OF      WHOM      VINDICATORY     JUSTICE      IS     A     PRIMORDIAL 
ATTRIBUTE. 

I  CAN  worship  benevolence.  I  can  see  at  a  glance 
that  it  admits  of  no  exceptions.  God  says  this. 
He  is  kind  even  to  the  unthankful  and  to  the  evil. 
But  can  I  worship  resentment  "t  I  turn  a  peas- 
ant man  into  his  closet,  and  tell  him  God  is  good, 
and  he  can  go  off  into  rapturous  devotion.  But 
resentment  in  all  spaces  underneath  the  Supreme  is 
wicked  and  forbidden.  From  youth  to  age,  from 
savage  to  tutored  life,  from  men  to  angels,  from  the 
lowest  of  the  angelic  host  to  Gabriel  as  he  sits  be- 
fore the  throne,  revenge  would  be  iniquity.  And  we 
may  choose  our  own  word,  anger,  wrath, — anything 
that  inspires  a  penalty.  We  can  make  it  all  right 
enough  so  long  as  we  treat  it  as  instrumental  and 
make  it  grow  out  of  a  love  of  right  and  out  of  re- 
gard for  the  stability  of  law,  but  the  moment  we 
bow  down  to  it  as  a  primordial  trait,  we  are  dazed 
immediately. 

I  admit  that  Dr.  Hodge's  positions  are  all  linked 
together. 

If  right  is  made  right  simply  by  the  will  of  the 
Almighty,  then  He  could  make  that  wrong  in  me 
which  is  right  in  any  other  being  :  primordially  too  ; 
for  we  must  carry  things  to  their  actual  extreme, 
and,  according  to  Dr.  Hodge,  the  will  of  God  is  the 
ground  of  moral  obligation. 


CiLvr.  v.]      A  God  wJiosc  CJiicf  End  is  Display.      25 

But  if  resentment,  which  is  wrong  in  me,  is  right 
in  God,  and  made  so  by  a  decision  of  His  will,  I  only 
say,  The  peasant  man  is  not  in  His  council.  We 
are  not  yet  challenging  anything.  Worship,  that  is 
the  question.  Gazing  upon  a  lake  of  fire,  and  told, 
That  is  the  birth  of  character,  it  is  a  mighty  differ- 
ence whether  the  character  knows  some  object 
beyond,  or  is  a  thing  by  itself  that  must  have  its 
feast  of  vengeance. 

And  if  it  be  this  latter,  then  now  again  : — 


CHAPTER  V. 

A   GOD    WHOSE    CHIEF   END    IS   TO   DISPLAY   HIS   GLORY. 

If  I  cannot  worship  God  for  the  fact  that  justice 
is  a  lust  of  vengeance,  how  can  I  worship  Him  if 
it  is  all  for  display.''  I  pause  for  no  difficulties.  If 
God's  vengeance  is  a  primordial  trait  it  does  not 
need  to  be  for  anything.  We  might  hold  just  there. 
If  anything  be  primordial  it  is  in  that  very  origin  of 
it  a  motive  to  itself.  If  God  punishes  precisely  as 
he  does  good,  lust  of  punishing  and  lust  of  doing 
good  \^€\ng  pai'i passu,  and  one  just  as  original  as  the 
other,  the  inquiry  as  to  any  chief  end  in  either  is 
illogical  in  the  extreme. 

But  that,  again. 

For  the  present,  having  no  rest  for  one's  feet, 
four  doctrines  having  been  proposed  with  no  food 
for  love  or  admiration,  consider  the  plain  man's  dis- 
tress if  the  list  goes  on  : — A  God  arranging  an 
eternal  Pit,  and  doing  it  out  of  a  lust  of  vengeance, 
2 


26  NotJiing  to    Worship.  [Buuk  I. 

but  first  ordaining  the  whole  to  display  His  power 
and  glory.  ' 

An  agony  which  I  cannot  bear,  and  which  is  to 
last  with  me  forever  in  the  flames,  and  which  is  to 
grow — that  ghastly  doctrine ! — my  Hell  to-day  being 
but  the  seed  time  of  my  torment  afterward, — my 
Hell  hereafter  being  but  a  seed  time  of  Hell  forever, — 
I  am  to  accept  and  consider  credible,  not  as  the  act 
of  a  gracious  Prince  in  its  own  severities,  but  as  the 
fruit  of  a  sovereign  vengeance  ;  and  not  simply  even 
that,  but  as  an  historical  display,  to  exhibit  His 
eternal  excellency. 

But  mark  our  purpose. 

It  is  not  to  discuss  the  doctrine.  God's  glory 
and  man's  glory  are  certainly  difierent.  Moreover, 
the  display  of  God's  glory  will  be  of  vast  impor- 
tance to  the  saints.  Only  this  we  are  setting 
forth : — Here  is  no  rapture  for  the  worshipper.  A 
God  who  leaves  men  in  a  lake  of  fire,  and  does  so, 
as  a  child  would  say,  simply  to  show  Himself;  lift- 
ing a  universal  frame  only  that  way  and  with  that 
utmost  end,  may  be  a  God,  let  us  try  to  suppose, 
with  other  and  more  usual  traits,  but  must  promote 
aside  from  these  a  creature's  adoration. 

CHAPTER    VI. 

A    GOD   WHOSE    UNIVERSE    IS    NOT   THE    BEST    POSSIBLE. 

The  best  possible  universe  is  certainly  better 
than  one  not  the  best  possible.  A  God  who  creates 
the  best  possible  universe  is  certainly  to  be  admired, 


Chap.  VII.]       A    God  Responsible  for  Sin.  27 

quoad  the  nature  of  His  work,  more  than  a  God 
who  creates  a  universe  not  the  best  possible.  Nay, 
given  one  better.  He  who  creates  one  less  good  may 
be  worshipped  for  other  features  of  His  work,  but, 
qnoad  that  one,  cannot  be  worshipped  at  all. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

A     GOD     MADE     RESPONSIBLE     FOR    SIN    BY     A     DISTINCTION     BE- 
TWEEN   PRESERVING   AND    CREATING. 

As  God  may  be  thrown  out  of  the  chambers  of 
our  worship  by  direct  ascriptions  that  rob  Him  of 
all  chance  of  adoration,  so  He  may  be  inferentially 
defaced  by  unworthy  arguments. 

Sin  being  that  bitter  thing  that  God  hates,  to 
say,  Unless  God  answers  to  a  theory  of  mine.  He 
is  Himself  a  sinner,  is  a  horrid  risk,  particularly  if 
the  theories  that  are  to  be  opposed  run  exceedingly 
close,  the  one  to  the  other. 

God  creates  me  and  foreknows  me  and  predicts 
me,  yea,  predestines  me ;  He  upholds  me,  and  con- 
curs with  me,  and,  if  He  withdraw  His  hand,  I  sink 
into  nothing  in  a  moment.  This  is  one  theory ;  and 
gives  God,  so  Dr.  Hodge  declares,  no  painful  re- 
sponsibility for  sin.  The  other  theory  is,  that  God 
creates  me  and  continues  to  create  by  a  continual 
emanation  of  His  power,  just  as  it  was  in  the  begin- 
ning. Now,  I  do  not  argue.  This  is  not  the  time 
for  it.  I  make  no  choice.  I  have  as  good  a  right 
to  one  theory  as  the  other.  But  Dr.  Hodge,  in 
risking  everything    upon    a  rational  conceit;  tying 


28  NotJiing  to    Worship.  [Book  I. 

the  millstone  of  his  philosophy  about  the  neck  of 
his  belief  in  God  (TheoL,  vol.  ii.  p.  73);  coloring  a 
shadowy  test,  and  saying,  this  theory  makes  God 
good,  and  this  theory  makes  Him  the  fountain  of 
our  trespass,  is  giving  the  neophyte  a  new  push  out 
of  the  temple.  Let  us  look  at  these  things  again. 
God  creates  me.  Then  he  knows  distinctly  all  that 
I  am  to  be.  He  decrees  me,  and  has  me  mapped 
before  Him  in  all  that  I  am  to  do.  He  upholds  me, 
concurring  with  me  in  my  work,  and  flowing  into 
me  as  the  only  means  to  keep  me  from  annihilation  ; 
and  Dr.  Hodge  adopts  all  this  as  utterly  consistent 
with  God's  not  being  responsible  for  trespass.  But 
if  I  say.  All  this  is  unnecessary ;  the  truth  is  far 
more  sifnple  ;  brute  atoms  are  but  the  Ahriman  of 
the  East,  utterly  superstitious  as  shields  to  the 
Majesty  on  high,  Dr.  Hodge  breaks  out  with  all 
his  thunders. 

I  say.  This  is  not  safe.  To  launch  the  bolt  of 
accusation  against  the  God  that  made  us  ;  to  say  my 
theory  is  true,  or  God  is  a  liar ;  Christ  did  not  make 
wine  at  Cana  of  Galilee,  or  Christ  is  no  Christ  for 
me ;  God  did  not  touch  slavery  on  the  top  of  Sinai, 
or  God  is  no  God  :  all  these  are  kindred  hazardous- 
nesses. 

Being  not  being  unless  God  is  in  it  to  hold  it  up, 
and  being  not  being  unless  God  continues  to  create, 
are  to  me  hi  se  so  similar,  that  to  say,  that  in  one 
case  God  is  healthily  aloof,  and  in  the  other  case 
visibly  responsible  for  our  trespass,  is  in  all  views 
singularly  venturous,  and  the  more  so  with   a  man 


CiiAP.  VIII.]       Helplessness  not  Disinclination.        29 

who  believes  that  souls  are  freshly  created  (vol.  ii. 
p.  70),  that  is,  the  infants  of  our  species,  not  being 
traduced  from  Adam,  but  directly  created  in  their 
sins  by  the  Almighty. 

Our  charges,  therefore,  are,  first,  that  he  wounds 
both  theories  by  wounding  either  ;  second,  that  he 
cannot  keep  holiness  out  of  one  without  keeping  it 
out  of  the  other ;  and  thirdly,  that  he  is  standing  on 
a  Rationalistic  foot  (strange  as  that  seems  for  Dr. 
Hodge),  because  he  is  confiding  the  worship  of  the 
Blessed  to  the  keeping  of  a  scientific  investigation. 

CHAPTER   VIII. 
man's  helplessness  not  disinclination. 

Engaged  heretofore  in  the  region  of  Natural 
Religion  we  cjme  now  nearer  to  the  gospel. 

If  God  has  made  everything  for  Himself,  and 
even  virtue  in  its  original  distinction  is  manufactured 
by  His  will ;  if  the  idea  of  Him  is  innate,  and  that 
idea  is  the  idea  of  a  Naked  Sovereignty ;  if  vindi- 
catory justice  is  primordial  like  grace,  and  the 
same  Sovereign  God  delights  in  it  for  His  personal 
display,  we  might  hope  that,  when  the  doors  of 
mercy  were  opened,  and  we  should  get  nearer  to 
the  cross,  the  sky  would  lighten.  And  yet  Doctrin- 
alism,  with  the  same  harsh  airs,  comes  in  to  the 
region  of  salvation. 

We  are  helpless. 

Now,  of  course,  the  Scriptures  teach  that  we  are 
helpless.     It  is  a  doctrine  that  all  confess. 


30  Nothing  to    Worship.  [Book  I. 

We  cannot  exaggerate  the  entireness  of  our  help- 
lessness, for  it  is  a  helplessness  like  death.  We 
cannot  wake  up.  And  if  we  cannot  wake  up,  we 
cannot  hear  or  think  or  feel  the  doctrines  of 
redemption.  We  can  be  waked  up  only  by  the 
Spirit. 

But  the  question  is.  Is  not  disinclination  the 
cause  of  it  .-* 

Dr.  Hodge  says,  No. 

I  have  been  preaching  that  it  is.  The  sinner 
is  cold  and  dead,  but  why  cavil  .^  he  is  wilfully  so. 
And  I  strip  all  hardship  out  of  the  case,  for  I  show 
that  his  whole  abandonment  of  God  is  from  the  state 
of  his  affection. 

I  do  not  preach  less  helplessness,  but  more  wil- 
fulness ;  and  I  do  not  underrate  at  all  the  dead  con- 
dition oT  the  sinner  because  I  take  off  the  blame 
from  God  and  put  on  the  blame  upon  the  lost 
man's  wickedness. 

I  exalt  God,  too,  more,  after  that,  in  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel. 

I  call  to  a  prisoner.  The  jail  is  burning.  I 
entreat  him  to  come  out.  He  refuses.  I  pity  him 
less,  because  his  doom  is  wilful.  But  I  search  the 
ashes,  and  the  wretch  was  chained  !  My  cry  trifled 
with  him. 

Dr.  Hodge  seems  quite  impervious  to  such  prac- 
tical ideas. 

He  says  (vol.  ii.  p.  70)  :  We  are  all  originated 
separately,  traductively  in  oar  bodies  but  separ- 
ately in  our  spirits.     Created  in  this  way  apart,  we 


Chap.  VIII.]       Helplessness  not  Disinclination.        31 

owe  our  relation  together  to  a  covenant  with 
Adam.  Born  each  man  by  himself,  it  has  pleased 
the  Almighty  that  we  should  be  born  wicked.  And 
born  wicked,  the  inference  is  that  I  came  into  the 
world  helpless,  and  now,  even  after  the  offer  of 
the  gospel,  that  I  have  never  a  chance  to  use  my  in- 
clination, or  in  any  single  instance  to  have  a  choice 
whether  I  will  not  repent  and  become  a  better  man. 

Can  the  peasant  take  this  and  turn  it  into  the 
coefficiencies  of  worship  1 

I  might  say,  You  are  lost ;  you  deserve  to  be  ; 
you  refuse  the  opposite ;  you  will  not  come  to  Christ 
that  you  might  have  life  ;  and  I  do  not  nullify  the 
fact  that  you  are  dead,  but  I  do  the  thought  that 
you  can  have  a  right  to  cavil.  You  are  lost  because 
you  choose  to  be.  But  if  I  weld  all  that  other  chain  : 
a  soul  created  and  not  born  ;  wicked  out  of  the  very 
hand  of  God  ;  helpless  out  of  the  very  nature  of  its 
wickedness  ;  helpless  like  a  dull  log,  and  not  be- 
cause it  refuses  to  be  delivered  ;  with  no  chance, 
therefore,  in  all  its  history  to  say  whether  it  will 
have  anything  better  or  not,  I  do  make  grace  a 
cheat,  and  the  sounding  alarums  of  the  gospel  a 
mere  tom-tom  for  the  misleading  of  my  spirit. 

If  I  preach : — True  you  are  helpless,  but  not 
helpless  in  any  ordinary  sense  :  God  has  truly  pro- 
vided pardon, — generously  offers  it, — would  mock 
you  were  you  in  all  sense  helpless  :  you  are  in  one 
sense  helpless,  and  in  such  sense  helpless  that  you 
will  never  live  through  all  eternity  without  the  grace 
of  Emmanuel ;  and  yet,  your  helplessness  is  being 


32  Nothing  to    Worship.  [Book  I. 

unwilling.  If  I  say,  the  drunkard  is  helpless,  and 
he  is  chained  to  his  cups,  but  yet  his  helplessness  is 
helplessness  of  will  and  desperate  appetite,  you 
cannot  complain  of  this  ;  for  we  do  not  allow  a  cul- 
prit to  complain  of  misery  if  he  has  been  repeatedly 
helped  up,  and  brutally  unwilling  to  maintain  his 
liberty. 

Yet  Dr.  Hodge  declares  that  all  this  is  utterly 
unsound.  Helplessness  (under  which,  remember, 
God  creates  us,  and  creates  us  de  novo,  so  that  we 
have  never  had  a  chance  for  a  nature  different)  is 
so  absolute  as  not  to  be  imputed  to  the  will,  and  not 
to  be  recovered  from  whatever  the  effort  of  the  will 
on  the  part  of  the  sinner.  Plain  men  are  horrified ! 
No  man  pretends  that  reason  can  lay  hold  of  this. 
God  creates  me,  and  creates  me  wicked,  and  sends 
me  Christ,  and  ofters  me  salvation,  and  begs  me  to 
accept  it,  and  brands  me  if  I  refuse,  and  yet  all  the 
time  had  created  me  unable,  and  that  inability  not 
consisting  in  an  unwillingness  to  try,  but  in  the 
blank  impossible  of  a  withheld  salvation.  Now  we 
take  nothing  for  granted.  We  do  not  denounce  this 
as  heresy.  We  are  not  at  that  stage  of  our  work. 
But  we  do  declare, — Here  is  nothing  to  be  worship- 
ped ;  and  a  plain  man  must  be  turned  still  out  of 
another  chamber  of  the  Temple,  and  must  find  some 
other  vicinorabilia  of  God  to  warm  him  and  to 
bridge  for  him  afresh  this  other  surd  point  in  the 
statement  of  His  character. 


Chap.  IX.]     Faith  not  in  Essence  Moral.  33 

CHAPTER   IX. 

THE   FAITH   THAT   SAVES   A   MAN   NOT   IN    ITS    ESSENCE   MORAL. 

When  I  hear  that  baptism  saves  a  man,  I  shud- 
der. That  feHcity  for  eternal  years  and  ransom 
from  the  horrors  of  the  Pit  are  to  follow  a  little  oxy- 
gen and  hydrogen  applied  by  the  fingers  of  a  priest 
in  an  earthly  instant,  I  shiver  at  being  obliged  to 
believe  anything  so  little.  No  mention  of  a  reason 
can  give  it  dignity,  and  no  comparison  with  the  Ap- 
ple in  the  Garden  (Gen.  ii.  16),  or  with  the  clay 
on  the  eyes  of  the  blind  (Jo.  ix.  6),  can  rob  it  of  its 
look,  or  give  it  the  least  especial  dignity.  Christ 
has  died,  and  I  know  tremendous  odds  have  been 
paid  for  our  redemption,  but  still,  if  any  conditions 
are  affixed,  to  be  worshipful  they  must  be  propor- 
tioned to  their  purpose.  God  could  convert  me  at 
His  pleasure.  He  could  visit  me  when  asleep.  I 
could  retire  accursed,  and  wake  glorified.  He  could 
convert  me  by  the  Ten  Commandments.  Christ, 
having  once  suffered.  He  could  apply  life  as  He 
pleased.  He  could  use  any  system  of  truth,  or  use 
none,  or  save  me  without  knowing  of  His  sacrifice, 
or  by  psalm-singing,  or  circumcision,  or  wearing  a 
particular  coat,  just  as  He  might  choose  to  do.  That 
He  should  limit  grace  to  those  that  hear  of  Himself, 
I  can  see  reasons  for,  but  no  imperative  need  such 
as  should  force  it  to  be  the  system. 

I  cannot  argue,  it  must  be  confessed,  as  strongly 
as  before.     God  might  demand  faith,  and  make  it 


34  Nothing  to   Worship.  [Book  I. 

all  of  the  intellect.  Still,  if  I  am  to  worship — and 
the  ways  of  God  are  all  that  I  can  think  of  for  His 
praise — I  see  a  difference  between  saving  a  man 
for  his  intellect,  and  saving  him  through  piety  of 
heart. 

There  are  two  schools,  therefore,  that  might 
emerge  on  this  important  question.  All  believe 
that  we  are  saved  by  truth.  The  poor  heathen,  as 
one  of  the  terriblenesses  of  Scripture,  are  supposed 
to  perish.  We  have  five  senses.  Through  some  of 
those  channels  must  come  a  story  of  the  Cross,  or 
we  must  necessarily  be  lost.  This  is  hard  to  be 
received.  But  all,  after  patient  toil,  begin  to  see 
reasons  why  this  might  wisely  have  been  decreed. 
But  when  men  go  further,  and  say  that  there  is  a 
difference  among  souls  that  hear  the  gospel, — that 
some  men  hear  it  savingly,  and  some  men  hear  it 
in  such  a  way  that  it  increases  their  condemnation, 
we  naturally  turn  with  eager  interest  to  that  dis- 
tinction, and  naturally  ask  that  it  shall  wear  a  dig- 
nity at  least  commensurate  with  the  mighty  differ- 
ence. 

Now,  what  discrepance  would  be  more  complete 
than  one  of  holiness  }  What  curses  us  is  sin  ;  what 
lifts  us  is  a  return  to  holiness.  Looked  at  on  the 
side  of  God,  our  conversion  is  a  new  birth.  Coin- 
cide ntly,  on  the  side  of  man  it  is  an  act  of  faith. 
Why  not  judge  of  the  two  things  together }  The 
new  birth  is  a  moral  change.  Why  not  faith  a 
moral  act  "^  A  lost  man  may  be  ever  so  much  in- 
telligent.     He   may  think   like   a   sage.      He   may 


Chap.  IX.]      FaitJi  not  in  Essence  Moral.  35 

speak  like  a  seraph.      He  ma)^  expouDd  doctrines 
like  the  apostles  of  God.     But  he  is  not  new-born, 
because   he   has   his   old   sinful  nature.      Why   not 
speak  that  way  about  faith.?     I  may  have  all  faith, 
so  that  I  can  remove  mountains  ;  I  may  believe  ar- 
ticulately and  in  every  imaginable  w^ay ;  I  may  un- 
derstand and  distinguish  and  trust ;  I  may  be  con- 
vinced, and  determined  and  resolute  in  upholding 
religion  ;  I   may  believe  in   every  possible  way,  ex- 
cept one,   and    not   be    a   Christian ;    and   why  not 
make  that  one  way  to   be  the  obverse  of  regenera- 
tion— i.  e.,  a  moral  faith.?     Why  not  agree  on  that 
as  the  Church's   teaching  }     A  man  owns  a  paint- 
ing, and  understands  it  perfectly.     He  gave  a  large 
sum  for  it.     He  understands  its  shape  and  colors, 
and  is  a  fine  judge  of  distances.     He  comprehends 
perspective,  and  can  descant  knowingly  upon  the 
perfection  of  its  parts ;  and  yet  he  has  no  faith  in  it. 
He  tells  you  he  does  not  admire  it.     Visitors  batter 
at  his  gates,  and  other  men  enjoy  the  picture  ;  but 
it  gives   him  no  pleasure.     What  is  the  difficulty  .? 
He  has  no  faith.    He  has  faith, — a  plenty  of  it, — but 
it  is  of  the  mere  intellect  kind.     He  has  no  esthetic 
faith.     Let  me  touch  him,  and  let  my  touch  be  God- 
like in  its  efficacy,  and  it  shall  change  him  into  one 
thing.     He   shall  have  taste.     The  eyes  of  his  un- 
derstanding shall  be  enlightened,  and  the  light  shall 
be  that  one  thing — beauty,  and  it  shall  flash  over  all 
the  rest,  and  his  intellectual  faith  shall  be  pervaded 
with  an  aesthetic  character.      The    image    is  com- 
plete.    Here  is  a  man  possesses  a  Saviour.     He  is 


36  NotJiing  to    Worship.  [Book  I. 

hung  up  in  his  house.  He  is  visibly  set  forth  cru- 
cified before  him.  His  next  door  neighbor  is  a 
Christian,  but  he  understands  the  picture  less  well 
than  this  friend  who  is  lost.  The  saved  man  takes 
lesson'  from  the  lost  man  in  the  truth  of  religion. 
What  is  the  difterence  .-*  Precisely  as  in  the  other 
case — a  want  of  taste.  Let  me  touch  him  with  my 
finger,  as  with  Almighty  grace,  and  what  is  the  re- 
sult .'*  Simply  a  moral  one.  He  has  all  the  rest. 
As  with  the  man  with  the  picture,  he  understands 
all  the  facts.  What  he  needs  is  light ;  and  he  has 
all  sorts  of  light  except  one  sort,  and  that  sort  is 
moral  light,  and  that  light  illuminates  every  other, 
and  unites  the  doctrines  that  are  concerned  in  this 
man's  salvation. 

Now  I  ask  whether  distinctly  excluding  this  from 
the  essence  of  faith  (see  vol.  iii.  pp.  41,  72),  and 
making  faith  consist  in  something  that  precedes 
this,  and  simply  leads  to  it,  does  not  in  the  first 
place  let  down  the  bars,  and  give  men  no  certain 
test  for  supposing  themselves  religious  ;  does  not 
in  the  second  place,  arrest  conversion  ;  does  not,  in 
the  third  place,  fill  the  church  with  hypocrites ;  does 
not,  in  the  fourth  place,  keep  them  so,  faith  being 
an  unmoral  faith  and  endangering  that  there  be  only 
an  unmoral  sanctification ;  and  does  not,  in  the  fifth 
place,  dampen  the  parents'  work  in  a  moral,  careful 
training  toward  the  faith  which  is  to  be  the  soul's 
salvation. 

We  have  gone  a  little  deeper  than  we  need,  for 
we  only  meant  to  speak  to  this  point,  that  faith,  as  a 


Chap.  X.]     Rationalism   Over-use  of  Reaso7i.  37 

moral  sight  reaching  down  to  all  the  distance  that  is 
regenerate,  is  the  true  counterpart  of  birth,  and  the 
zvorsJiipfid  condition  of  the  soul's  salvation. 

To  call  it  not  moral  is  to  exclude  all  that  it  is 
distinctively;  for  though  it  must  take  hold  intelli- 
gently of  Christ,  yet  it  did  that  before,  in  all  but 
moral  respects,  when  there  was  no  saving  hold 
upon  His  redeeming  excellency. 


CHAPTER   X. 

RATIONALISM   AN    OVER-USE   OF   REASON. 

It  is  odd  that  a  mind  that  would  keep  Faith 
within  the  periphery  of  Reason  should  exclude  Rea- 
son so  from  the  domain  of  Faith. 

We  barely  glance  at  this. 

We  will  recur  to  it  again  where  we  can  do  more 
justice  to  Dr.  Hodge.  He  does  not  introduce  this 
point  as  directly  as  the  others.  In  fact,  he  exalts 
Reason  sometimes  till  one  shrinks  from  foUowino- 
him.  For  the  present  we  intend  only  this  picture  : 
— A  man  turned  into  his  closet  and  told  to  worship 
God  :  when  he  only  bows  or  only  mutters,  told, — No, 
it  must  be  an  intelligent  admiration  ;  when  he  asks, 
For  what.?  told, — for  His  great  virtue;  when  he 
asks,  What  is  His  chief  virtue  }  told, — His  making 
everything  for  Himself;  when  he  asks.  Why  is 
that  a  great  virtue.?  told,— Because  that  is  His 
will,  and  the  will  of  God  is  the  ground  of  moral 
obligation ;  when  declaring  that  he  cannot  see  that, 
told  that  he  does,  for  the  idea  of  God,  and  particu- 


3$  Nothing  to   Worship.  [Book  I. 

larly  of  this  responsibility  to  God,  is  innate  ;  when 
asking  for  some  other  virtue,  told, — Vindicatory 
Justice  ;  and  when  askhig,  Why  that  then  is 
thought  so  wrong  in  men  ?  told, — Such  is  the  will  of 
God  ;  when  asking,  What  greatest  end  God's  will 
is  driving  towards  with  such  expensive  methods  as 
His  vengeance,  told, — To  the  display  of  His  own 
glory  ;  when  asking  if  that  leads  to  man's  best  good, 
told, — Not  necessarily  ;  when  roused  against  this, 
and  complaining  that  God  must  then  be  responsible 
for  the  wicked,  told, — O  no  ;  He  only  creates  and 
foreknows  and  upholds  and  predestines  and  concurs 
with  them  in  wickedness,  and  that  this,  by  virtue  of 
a  certain  secondary  or  causal  subsistence  of  men,  is 
vastly  different  from  a  continuous  creation  ;  when 
asking  if  there  is  no  way  out  of  this  entangled  lot, 
told, — Yes  ;  but  that  man  is  helpless  to  find  it,  and 
that  this  helplessness  does  not  consist  in  disinclina- 
tion ;  when  asking.  Why  not  ?  seeing  that  sin  itself 
consists  in  disinclination,  and  that  the  first  step  in 
a  return  must  consist  in  a  better  will,  told, — No  ; 
the  first  step  in  return  consists  in  Faith,  and  Faith 
does  not  consist  in  what  is  in  its  essence  moral ;  and 
when  saying  that  this  is  a  total  confusion  of  Reason, 
and  something  that  the  mind  cannot  steady  itself 
under,  or  plough  its  way  out  of,  with  any  argument, 
told  that  it  need  not,  that  Reason  must  be  a  sort  of 
outlaw  in  religion,  for  that  the  over-use  of  Reason 
is  a  skeptic  Rationalism, 


BOOK   II. 

SOMETHING    TO    WORSHIP. 

Still  shunning  direct  argument,  it  would  be  in- 
tensely interesting  if  we  could  find  a  common  law 
for  these  ten  points  of  Dr.  Hodge,  and  before  treating 
them  one  by  one  could  detect  a  practical  mistake 
that  could  account  for  all  of  them. 


CHAPTER   I. 

HOLINESS. 

This  is  a  first  class  quality,  and  hundreds  of 
pages  in  Theology,  without  any  great  mention  of  it, 
must  be  objects  of  suspicion.  In  the  hands  of  Dr. 
Hodge  all  that  is  written  must  have  the  presump- 
tion of  being  orthodox,  and  the  very  sound  of  the 
ten  doctrines  that  we  have  marked  will  be  orthodox 
in  Presbyterian  ears. 

But  suppose  we  can  create  a  distinction.  Sup- 
pose we  dissect  away  these  ten  propositions.  Sup- 
pose Vv^e  can  show  that  Calvinism  is  complete  with- 
out them.  Suppose  they  are  excrescences.  Remem- 
ber, they  have  never  been  together  before  in  any 
Calvinistic  book.  Suppose  the  Church  seems  grow- 
ing in  them,  and  getting  crusted  by  them.  And 
suppose  (what  is  now  the  task)  we  can  generalize 

(39) 


40  Something  to   Worship.  [Book  II. 

them  and  show  the  seminal  mistake,  and  that  that 
mistake  is  nothing  less  than  a  dropping  out  of  Holi- 
ness, cannot  we  abate  the  prejudice  that  would 
unify  all  the  work  of  Dr.  Hodge,  and,  with  a  cooler 
eye,  fix  only  upon  the  genuine  part  of  it  t 

To  do  this  let  us  define  Holiness. 

Holiness,  by  way  of  preface  let  it  be  observed, 
is  either,  first,  a  quality — in  which  sense  we  speak 
of  the  holiness  of  a  certain  act ;  or,  second,  the  act 
itself — as  when  we  assume  as  holiness  an  act  of 
love ;  or,  third,  a  character.  It  is  in  the  second 
meaning  of  the  three  that  we  shall  be  considering 
Holiness  in  this  present  chapter. 

In  this  sense  it  consists  of  two  things — Benevo- 
lence, and  the  Love  of  the  Quality,  which  was  the 
earlier  meaning. 

This  appears  in  the  Two  Commandments  : 
"  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  ; "  that  means, 
— Thou  shalt  love  His  Holiness.  For  sovereignty, 
and  for  potency  and  immensity  and  sagacity,  and 
whatever  things  are  not  moral,  we  are  not  obliged  to 
love  Him. 

But  God  is  like  man,  and  God's  holiness  and 
man's  holiness  are  alike,  because  one  is  in  the  Other's 
image.  God's  Holiness,  therefore,  is  (i),  a  love  to 
the  quality  of  right,  and  (2),  a  love  for  the  wel- 
fare of  all  His  creatures. 

God's  Holiness  is  His  Highest  motive.  Being 
His  highest  motive,  God's  Holiness  is  His  imper- 
ative law.  Being  His  imperative  law,  it  is  fair  to 
distinguish  and  to  say, — God's  love  for  the  welfare 


Chap.  I.]      God's  Highest  End  not  Himself.  41 

of  all  His  creatures  is  less,  quoad  the  obligation  of 
motive,  than  His  love  to  holiness. 

Here  Dr.  Hodge  has  two  suspiciousnesses  : — 
first,  that  these  two  holinesses  take  no  part  in  the 
ten  propositions  that  are  before  us  ;  and,  second, 
that  the  two  thousand  pages  of  his  work  put  Love 
outside  of  Holiness,  give  scarce  three  pages  to  the 
latter,  and  give  not  thirty  pages  to  the  whole  ungen- 
eralized  list  of  Jehovah's  excellencies. 

Is  this  a  mark  of  decay  in  doctrinal  theology } 

The  Bible  fairly  thrills  with  ascriptions  to  Holi- 
ness. 

Let  us  look,  therefore,  again  at  the  ten  points; — 
not  now  to  show  that  they  have  Nothing  to  Worship, 
but  what  they  need  to  give  that  ;  specifically,  what 
is  the  crook  in  them,  and  what  that  is  which,  being 
supplied,  turns  all  straight,  and  gives  flesh  on  these 
very  bones  for  the  body  of  our  Theology. 

CHAPTER  II. 
god's  highest  end  not  himself,  but  his  holiness. 

Holiness  being  a  love  of  right,  and  a  love  of 
others'  welfare,  God's  Holiness  consists  in  these  ;  and 
a  love  of  right  being  the  more  imperative  of  the  two, 
and  the  most  imperative  of  all  the  motives  that  can 
be  conceived,  God's  Holiness  is  His  Highest  Mo- 
tive. This  softens  the  proposition  at  once.  A  man 
goes  into  his  closet,  and  has  something  to  adore. 
Nay,  he  changes  to  the  highest  admiration.  A  God 
all  for  Himself  he  looks  hard  at.     It  helps  him  never 


42  Something  to   Worship.  [Book  IL 

a  whit.  But  a  God  all  for  His  Holiness  rises  at 
once  to  the  very  highest  reaches  of  his  praise.  He 
understands  that  perfectly.  And  instead  of  a  stone 
of  absolute  offence,  he  turns  round  this  marble  in 
the  building,  and  it  fits  confest  in  its  place  upon  the 
wall. 

CHAPTER   III. 

THE     GROUND     OF     MORAL     OBLIGATION     THE      EXCELLENCE     OF 
HOLINESS. 

That  the  Ground  of  Moral  Obligation  is  the 
Will  of  God  must  all  bristle  with  mistakes.  Can 
He  make  right  wrong }  Can  He  make  right  so  that 
there  is  none  till  He  chooses  to  make  it,  and  that 
there  is  none  as  a  moral  obligation  to  Himself;  and 
that  can  be  His  glory  till  He  wills  to  have  it  so, 
and  till  He  stamps  it, as  right,  and  puts  it  in  His 
character } 

We  will  not  forestall  this  argument ;  but  simply 
show  how  difficulties  vanish  when  we  submit  an- 
other ground,  and  bring  in  again  for  that  the  ex- 
cellence of  Holiness. 

If  I  tell  a  plain  man  to  praise  God  because  He 
makes  law  and  says  what  shall  be  right,  he  stares 
at  me.  But  if  I  tell  him,  God  honors  law  and  loves 
right,  there  is  a  ground  of  adoration  at  once.  He 
goes  cheerfully  into  his  closet,  and  admires  the 
Prince  who  binds  him  with  a  law  made  right  by  its 
intrinsic  excellence. 


CiiAP.  IV.]     God's  Glory  His  Chief  End.  43 


CHAPTER  IV. 

A   GOD   WHO    DOES    EVERYTHING   FOR    HIS    GLORY. 

A  God  who  does  everything  to  display  His 
glory,  leaves  me  evidently  to  ask, — what  is  His  mo- 
tive in  that }  Dr.  Hodge  has  hardly  enounced  his 
proposition  before  he  is  borne  helplessly  that  way, 
and  begins  naively  to  tell  us  what  good  God  does  by 
exhibiting  Himself  to  His  created  universe.  But 
the  good  He  does  mars  the  picture,  because  it  in- 
stantly suggests  that  the  Display  cannot  be  the 
motive  in  itself.  The  Display  of  excellence  cannot 
be  God's  Highest  End,  because  it  leaves  room  to 
cut  in  behind  it,  in  that  we  can  immediately  ask, — 
What  is  His  chief  end  in  that .?  Moreover,  for  a 
Great  God  it  is  an  irreverent  notion  that  His  Chief 
End  is  such  a  thing  as  show,  and  that  His  Whole 
Design  is  one  that  terminates,  i.  e.  has  its  end,  upon 
the  creature. 

Now  bring  in  Holiness.  It  comes  in  like  magic 
to  smooth  everything  that  looks  like  difficulty.  Sol- 
omon calls  it  Wisdom.  He  says,  **  I  was  set  up 
from  everlasting"  (Prov.  viii.  23).  He  speaks  of 
this  very  thing,  the  planning  of  the  Universe.  He 
says,  **  Jehovah  got  possession  of  me  as  the  begin- 
ning of  His  way"  (ibid.  v.  22).  He  says,  ''I  was  by 
His  side  a  builder"  (v.  3o).-''-  And  leads  us  to 
infer  as  the   grand  doctrine   of  his  book,  that  the 

*  See  Author's  Comm.  on  Prov.,  in  loco. 


44  SoinctJnng  to    Worship.  [Book  II. 

chief  end  of  God  was  "  Wisdom,''  or,  as  he  had  de- 
fined it,  Holiness  (Prov.  i.  2,  3,  See  Covnn.'). 

Now  bring  in  the  expressions  of  the  Bible.  We 
are  told  that  the  chief  end  of  God  is  His  ''glory'' 
But  when  we  come  to  consider  this  Hebrew  word, 
it  has  nothing  to  do  with  His  display.  If  the  idea  of 
showing  Himself  is  broached,  it  is  only  for  an  in- 
ferior end.  Where  His  cJiief  end  is  noticed,  it  is 
declared  to  be  His  Glory ;  and  where  glory  comes 
to  be  expounded,  it  is  found  to  mean  simply  weight. 
It  is  the  weight  of  God,  or  His  intrinsic  excellence, 
that  is  found  to  be  the  highest  aim  of  His  activity. 

To  say,  then,  that  the  highest  aim  of  God  is  to 
shozu  Himself,  confounds  the  worshipper.  To  say 
that  the  highest  aim  of  God  is  to  be  Himself,  re- 
lieves all,  at  once.  Holiness  immediately  comes  in 
upon  the  stage.  It  is  Holiness  that  has  been  kept 
out.  Glory  in  the  sense  of  iveight,  that  is.  Holiness 
as  God's  highest  excellence,  comes  in  at  once  upon 
the  scene,  and  takes  its  place  legitimately  and  as 
His  highest  object. 

CHAPTER   V. 

THE  IDEA  OF  GOD  NOT  INNATE. 

Nor  should  we  allow  the  Holiness  of  God  to 
burrow  out  of  sight  as  we  do  by  admitting  that  '*  the 
Idea  of  God  is  Innate." 

We  postpone  argument  in  chief.  We  are  not 
showing  that  these  propositions  are  incorrect.  We 
have  no  right  to  take  for  granted  that  they  are  the 


Chap.  V.]  Idea  of  God  not  Innate.  45 

propositions  of  Dr.  Hodge.  But,  postponing-  the 
test  of  them  to  the  appropriate  portion  of  the  book, 
we  are  only  showing  now  the  absence  of  the  great 
element  of  Holiness. 

Holiness  is  not  an  innate  idea.  It  has  three 
senses.  In  one  sense  it  means  a  quality.  This 
quality  is  not  an  innate  idea ;  we  detect  it  as  we  do 
beauty,  by  direct  conscious,  perception.  It  is  a 
quality  of  two  emotions  !  These  are  holinesses,  as  by 
the  second  meaning  of  the  word  ;  and  these  are  not, 
of  course,  innate,  but  are  detected,  like  the  fra- 
grance of  the  rose,  as  absolute  perceptions.  The 
third  meaning  is  a  character.  This  is  neither  innate 
nor  conscious,  but  an  observed  law,  not  inspected 
in  itself,  but  known  of  through  a  manifold  expe- 
rience. 

A  peasant  worshipping  an  innate  idea  is  a  be- 
fogged and  unsettled  imbecile.  But  bring  holiness 
in,  and  remind  him  of  what  right  act  is  in  his  own 
nature,  and  make  that  infinite  in  God,  and  he  has 
something  tangible  at  once.  Our  generalization 
is  still  complete.  The  ten  points  nakedly  give 
nothing  to  worship.  But  alter  each  by  bringing 
holiness  into  the  account,  and  it  touches  all  as  with 
a  talisman.  The  grim  face  drops  off,  and  under- 
neath, as  from  a  hideous  mask,  comes  a  sight  for 
the  very  tenderest  admiration. 


46  Something  to   Worship.  [Book  II. 

CHAPTER    VI. 

VINDICATORY  JUSTICE   NOT   A   PRIMORDIAL   ATTRIBUTE   OF   GOD. 

Why  should  it  be } '  If  Holiness  is  God's  highest 
motive,  then  nothing  is  primordial  except  its  two 
only  exercises.  In  fact,  one  of  these  is  not  in  chief, 
for  love  to  creatures  is  not  equal  in  its  binding  force 
to  love  to  the  principle  of  Holiness.  Love  to  the 
principle  of  Holiness  is  final  and  supreme. 

If  I  say,  God  loves  the  principle  of  Holiness, 
and,  in  order  to  advance  it.  He  punishes,  because 
pain  and  curse  are  natural  instruments  for  discour- 
aging sin,  I  place  God  distinctly  in  analogy  with 
other  beings.  I  do  not  subject  law  to  mere  happi- 
ness, because  I  do  not  make  benevolence  the  ruling 
trait.  I  bring  in  that  which  is  really  august  and 
final.  I  do  not  exalt  vengeance,  but  put  something- 
altogether  above  it,  and  strip  it  intelligently  of  a 
leading  place.  I  make  all  Scripture  at  once  con- 
sistent. If  God  says,  He  pities  me,  I  know  how  that 
is  consistent  with  His  vengeance.  If  He  says.  He 
would  have  all  men  to  repent,  I  see  at  once  that 
vengeance  is  not  primary ;  I  see  at  once  that  be- 
nevolence, which  is  itself  not  chief,  nevertheless  is 
nearer  to  the  head  than  the  divine  resentment. 
Resentment  is  not  a  trait  ;r  ipsa  at  all.  The  peas- 
ant man  may  look  at  God  exactly  as  at  his  fellow. 
The  prim.al  attribute  of  God  is  Holiness.  The  pri- 
mal exercise  of  Holiness  is  love  to  its  own  quality. 
A  way  to  develop  Htjliness  is  to  punish.     Vindica- 


Chap,  vil]     TJic  Universe  the  Best  Possible.  47 

tory  Justice  means  a  fidelity  to  punish.  The  effi- 
cacy of  punishment  lies  in  the  very  constitution  of 
Nature.  Vindicatory  Justice  is,  therefore,  as  of  the 
very  constitution  of  all.  But,  spite  of  this  claim  to 
naturalness,  it  is  a  mere  secondary  trait."  So  the 
plain  man  can  worship  it.  And  thus  again  he  is 
extricated  from  the  dark.  How  can  I  love  God  for 
revenging,  when  I  am  to  hate  it  in  man  'i  Answer  : 
He  does  not  revenge.  He  is  the  world's  Magistrate 
as  of  the  analogy  of  His  creatures.  He  hates  to 
take  vengeance  (Lam.  iii.  33,  34;  Ezek.  xxxiii.  11). 
His  primary  desire  is  holiness.  Punishment  is  its 
needful  aid ;  not  always  for  the  subject  of  punish- 
ment himself,  but  for  the  greater  universe.  A  penal 
law  is  a  contributor,  a  gloomy  second,  to  the  Holi- 
ness which  is  His  aim. 


CHAPTER   VIL 

THE    BEST   rOSSIBLE    UNIVERSE. 

Hence  this  is  the  best  possible  universe. 

If  holiness  is  God's  highest  end,  then  His  own 
holiness  must  be ;  for,  that  being  His  supreme  desire, 
it  is  inevitable  that  He  should  indulge  it.  He  being 
able  to  plan  de  novo,  and  not  having  an  Ahriman  to 
contend  with,  would  certainly  form  the  scheme  of  a 
universe  that  would  be  the  very  holiest,  whether  it 
be  happy  or  no. 

I  admit  that  His  own  holiness  precedes.  So,  of 
course.  He  would  love  His  own  holiness  more  than 
that  of.any  of  His  creation.    But,  holiness  consisting 


48  SonictJiing  to    Worship.  [Book  1 1. 

of  two  emotions,  I  cannot  conceive  that  the  hoUness 
of  God  should  dwarf  the  holiness  of  any  of  His 
creatures.  His  own  holiness,  therefore,  not  inter- 
fering with  the  rest,  we  may  treat  His  own  as  out  of 
the  account,  and  say  that,  quoad  the  creatures  He 
has  made.  His  highest  end  is  their  utmost  holiness. 

Of  two  things,  therefore,  one  : —  Either  God's 
highest  end  is  not  actually  reached,  or  else,  from  the 
very  nature  of  His  holiness,  this  universe  is  the 
very  holiest  that  could  be  made. 

But,  further ;  benevolence  is  the  other  emotion  ; 
inferior,  no  doubt,  and  greedily  sacrificed  if  the 
other  demand  it;  but,  specifically,  how  could  it  de- 
mand it  .<*  Conceive  the  solecism  !  That  this  uni- 
verse is  the  holiest  possible,  is  a  queer  reason  cer- 
tainly why  it  cannot  be  the  happiest  possible  ;  and, 
therefore,  it  can,  and  is,  both  holiest  and  happiest, 
unless  a  stop  is  found  in  the  ruling  emotion. 

We  claim  both  therefore.  Difficulties  we  can 
treat  afterward. 

Holiness  is  our  stand-by.  And  if  that  is  all  right, 
and  it  clears  away  another  difficulty,  so  that  the  peas- 
ant can  build  where  there  was  a  pit,  and  breathe 
where  there  was  a  mephitic  vapor,  we  count  that, 
evidence  in  the  very  fact,  for  it  illumines  with  its 
mighty  difference.  A  God  whose  whole  work  is  the 
best,  and  a  God  whose  whole  work  is  not  the  best, 
are  very  discrepant  Jehovahs ;  and  the  closets 
where  the  two  are  met,  must  glow  with  diftcrent 
fires,  and  shelter  different  ranks  of  astonished  wor- 
shippers. <« 


Chap.  VIII.]     God  not  Implicated  with  Sin.  49 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

GOD    NOT   IMPLICATED    WITH   SIN,    THOUGH    PRESERVING    PROVI- 
DENCE   BE   THE   SAME   AS   A    CONTINUOUS    CREATION, 

With  all  the  rough  temper  of  previous  proposi- 
tions turned  away,  we  come  with  more  cheerfulness 
to  face  the  difficulty  of  God's  responsibility  for  sin. 

God  is  responsible  for  sin  very  radically,  and  in 
ways  that  are  innocent :  for  remember.  He  created 
the  universe,  and  sin  is  in  it. 

Dr.  Hodge  drives  this  to  an  extreme  ;  for  he 
makes  God  create  the  infant,  and  create  him  wick- 
ed, and  not  traductively  in  any  natural  sort  from 
the  souls  of  our  first  parents. 

To  be  responsible  in  ways  not  innocent  must 
arise  from  one  of  two  things ;  either,  first,  that  God 
sins  our  sins,  or  second,  that  He  sins  by  connexion 
with  us  w^ho  sin  them.  Holiness  appears  again  as 
our  ally  to  grapple  the  difficulties  of  this  new 
dilemma. 

What  is  holiness }  It  is  an  emotion  of  benevo- 
lence, or  else  it  is  an  emotion  of  love  to  right. 
What  is  sin  }  It  must  be  a  want  of  benevolence,  or 
a  want  of  love  to  the  quality  of  right.  The  first  two 
are  emotions  ;  the  last  two  are  the  want  of  them. 
It  is  clear  God  cannot  commit  the  sin  itself,  be- 
cause, however  responsible  for  it,  it  is  the  act  of  a 
certain  state  of  a  heart's  emotion.  Whatever  His 
relation  to  that  heart,  it  is  the  heart's  act,  and  not 
the  act  of  the  Almighty. 
3 


50  Soviet Jiing  to    Worship.  [Book  II. 

But  He  may  be  responsible  for  it! 

Yet  how  ? 

We  have  seen  that  He  is  responsible  for  it,  and 
that  in  the  most  important  ways. 

To  be  responsible  for  it  sinfully  He  must  be  so 
in  one  of  two  manners, — either  by  failing  in  benevo- 
lence, or  by  failing  in  love  to  the  principle  of  holi- 
ness. 

Let  it  be  understood  positively,  God  cannot  sin, 
just  as  man  cannot  sin,  except  in  these  sheer  par- 
ticulars,— a  want  of  love  to  the  welfare  of  others,  or 
a  want  of  love  to  the  principle  of  holiness. 

Now  what  if  both  objects  are  promoted  by  or- 
daining sin.'* 

I  pretend  to  no  full  defence.  I  do  not  claim 
that  my  theory  sweeps  the  difficulty.  I  only  say, — 
It  softens  it.  Having  found  a  cause  for  the  best 
possible  universe,  I  only  say  that  w^e  may  be  enrap- 
tured by  this  good  Jehovah,  and  trust,  more  than 
Dr.  Hodge  can,  that  out  of  the  horrors  of  the  lost 
His  holiness  can  maintain  its  objects. 

But  what  if  it  cannot !  What  if  other  princi- 
ples must  be  brought  in  to  the  solution :  one  thing 
is  certain, — making  God  holy  in  the  way  man  is 
holy,  and  bringing  down  the  trait  to  the  level  of  our 
intelligent  emotions,  makes  the  distinction  that  Dr. 
Hodge  drew  still  more  conspicuously  unsafe.  If 
holiness  is  these  two  emotions,  it  is  contradicted  by 
a  preserving  Providence  just  as  much  as  by  a  contin- 
uous creation.  To  say  the  least,  it  is  a  very  rash 
distinction.     In  the  light  of  a  human  holiness  to  say 


Chap.  IX.]       Helplessness  Disinclination.  5 1 

that  God  is  perfect  if  He  ordains  and  concurs,  and 
is  a  sinner  if  He  continuously  creates,  is  to  launch 
a  bolt,  of  which  the  deeper  men  think  the  more  it 
will  wound  their  respect  for  the  Almighty. 


CHAPTER    IX. 

THE    sinner's    helplessness   DISINCLINATION. 

If  holiness  be  a  love  for  others  and  a  love  for 
the  principle  of  moral  right,  sinfulness,  which  is  the 
opposite  of  these,  must  be  the  same  numerically  as 
disinclination.  If  sinfulness  be  the  same  as  disin- 
clination, helplessness,  which  is  the  same  as  sinful- 
ness (and  I  mean  by  that  numerically — not  that  the 
words  do  not  have  a  different  aspect),  must  be  the 
same  numerically  as  disinclination.  In  other  words, 
you  must  find  some  other  account  of  a  sinner's  help- 
lessness than  that  it  is  of  the  very  essence  of  his 
sinfulness,  or  else  you  must  admit  his  disinclination 
as  of  the  very  essence  of  his  helplessness  also. 

Please  notice  how  in  this  first  view  Dr.  Hodge 
has  pushed  aside  the  moral  feature  from  his  system. 

But  again,  restoring  holiness  as  not  finding  its 
ground  by  the  will  of  the  Almighty,  and  not  belong- 
ing to  a  God  in  idea  innate,  we  are  warmed  by  a 
human  conscience,  and  come  into  the  region  of 
familiar  right.  Thus  judged,  Dr.  Hodge's  idea  of 
helplessness  becomes  impossible. 

The  idea  of  helplessness  at  all  is  difficult ;  but 
make  it  moral,  and  bring  it  within  the  region  of 
man's  disinclination  to  repent,  and  it  mingles   with 


52  Something  to    Worship.  [Book  II. 

a  thousand  facts  of  the  helplessness  of  crime  in  this 
world.  But  make  it  spiritual,  as  Dr.  Hodge  would 
see  fit  to  call  it,  and  make  it  of  a  nature  of  spiritism 
that  is  mystic  and  kin  to  the  innate,  and  then  bring 
down  upon  it  a  plain  definition  of  holiness  that  is  in 
the  region  of  our  race  ;  and  then,  inviting  after 
creating  helpless,  and  promising  where  there  is  no 
strength  to  accept,  and  cursing  for  this  where  the 
helplessness  is  not  disinclination,  appears  in  its  true 
deformity.  It  is  an  outrage  upon  the  holiness  of 
God ;  and,  therefore,  let  this  distinctly  appear, — that 
it  has  been  a  leaving  out  of  holiness  that  has 
enabled  Dr.  Hodge  even  to  broach  his  ghostly 
proposition. 

CHAPTER  X. 

SAVING   FAITH    IN    ITS    ESSENCE    MORAL. 

Here  the  moral  \s  pro  fonna  left  out. 

We  beg  the  reader  to  mark  this  special  general- 
ization. 

Ten  propositions  have  been  found  singularly  un- 
favorable to  worship.  We  have  sought  some  charac- 
ter for  them.  We  shall  seek  hereafter  (p.  60)  some 
origin  in  a  failing  of  the  church.  The  character  we 
have  found  is  in  an  omission.  The  omission  is  of  the 
attribute  of  holiness.  And  in  this  present  instance 
among  the  ten  the  omission  is  most  direct.  We 
have  reached  the  great  act  oi faith;  and  instead  of 
making  it  answer  to  the  great  fact  of  regeneration, 
the  interests  of  sin   have  succeeded  in  keeping  it 


Chap.  XL]      Rationalism  not  too  vinch  Reason.        53 

distinct.  It  is  made  something  that  logically  pre- 
cedes repentance  ;  and,  instead  of  counting  it  the 
dawning  light  that  shines  brighter  and  brighter  to 
the  perfect  day,  it  is  made  intelligent  first  and 
moral  afterward.  Dr.  Hodge  would  deny  that  sanc- 
tifiedness  was  but  a  higher  and  higher  exercise  of 
faith,  or  else  he  must  affirm  that  sanctifiedness  is 
not  moral,  or  else  he  must  deny  that  the  first  act  of 
faith  is  like  (only  lower)  all  the  other  acts  of  faith 
that  come  after  and  spring  out  of  its  loins. 

Hence  we  might  be  sure  there  would  be  hypoc- 
risy in  the  modern  church.  These  dogmas  both 
follow  and  produce  it.  A  sinner  let  in  upon  Christ 
upon  a  ticket  not  of  its  essence  moral,  stays  in  upon 
no  better,  and  it  fills  the  church  with  earthliness. 
All  the  propositions  conspire.  A  God  quite  for 
Himself,  a  morals  manufactured  by  a  will,  a  Deity 
mystically  innate,  a  Judge  removed  from  us  by  a 
passion  fbr  revenge,  doing  all  things  for  display, 
and  doing  nothing  for  the  best, — all  sap  the  very 
foundations  of  our  godliness,  break  in  upon  the 
Temple  of  our  praise,  and  give  us  no  certain 
thought  about  either  self  or  a  Creator. 


CHAPTER   XI. 

RATIONALISM    NOT   TOO    MUCH    REASON. 

We  would  not  wonder,  therefore,  that  such  a 
system  should  be  intolerant  of  reason. 

Reason  is  universal  in  man.     It  judges   every- 


54  Something  to    Worship.  [Book  II. 

thing.  It  takes  cognizance  of  the  spirit.  It  is 
the  instrument  of  Ufe.     It  must  bring  us  to  heaven. 

Reason  is  but  the  mind  of  man  as  it  takes 
co2:nizance  of  truth.  Truth  is  of  all  sorts, — as  for 
example  the  beauty  of  a  cloud,  or  the  excellence 
of  holiness.  Too  much  reason  is  like  too  much 
grace  or  too  much  piety  ;  and  the  very  name  of  it  sells 
us  to  the  wicked.  Philosophers  rejoice  when  with 
their  wicked  will  they  betray  the  divine  into  dis- 
coursing against  reason,  and  using  that  word  Ra- 
tionalism as  tantamount  to  something  too  keenly 
rational. 

Reason  is  a  revelation  of  God.  It  is  an  earlier 
revelation  than  the  Bible.  The  Bible  has  been 
built  on  reason.  It  could  be  no  revelation  without 
reason.  It  is  made  out  as  revelation  only  by  rea- 
son ;  and  a  reason  sanctified  is  only  a  restored  rea- 
son, and  a  reason  faithful  to  its  trust  and  risen  to  its 
highest  reasonableness. 

It  is  fearfully  dangerous  to  decry  reason  before 
unregenerate  men. 

And  now,  as  before,  reason  is  cast  out  as  the 
genuine  friend  of  holiness.  If  God  be  innate  we 
get  our  idea  less  reasonably.  If  He  be  for  Himself, 
and  loves  display,  and  finds  it  congenial  to  take  ven- 
geance, and  (without  all  that  tedious  list)  is  and 
does  all  that  has  been  proclaimed,  reason  is  less 
necessary.  Holiness  restores  reason  ; — that  is  our 
interesting  idea.  Hohness  restored  to  God  brings 
Him  within  the  study  of  our  reason.  And  if  that 
Holiness  be  the  same  as   man's  we  instantly  begin 


Chap.  XI.       RatioualisDi  not  too  inncJi  Reason.         55 

to  worship  it.  We  pass  over  the  bridge  in  our 
prayers,  and  lay  hold  of  something  intelligibly  excel- 
lent. Reason  is  our  friend  before  the  throne.  And 
if  holiness  is  benevolence  and  the  love  of  virtue,  we 
can  see  how  those  plain  things  could  be  understood  ; 
and  how  much  it  would  be  for  the  interest  of  sin 
to  keep  reason  hid,  and  to  have  it  defamed  and 
suspected  amoni 


BOOK  III. 

FETICH. 

It  is  time  now  that  we  trace  the  origin  of  these 
errors  of  the  orthodox.  We  have  shown  their 
character,  and  shown  that  it  consists  in  an  absence 
of  hoUness. 

A  physician  does  two  things  : — He  finds  the 
symptoms  of  a  disease,  and  then  the  source  of  it, 
i.  e.,  the  stone  or  the  ulcer  to  which  it  can  be  traced. 

What  Dr.  Hodge  says  is  symptomatic  of  his 
Church  ; — not  necessarily  not  helped  on  by  him, 
but  growing  that  way  in  the  orthodoxy  in  which  he 
has  been  upreared  ;  and  growing  that  way  by  just 
such  men  as  he, — ^just  as  a  tree  grows  by  its  loftiest 
and  topmost  boughs. 

Where  then  is  the  root  of  mischief.'* 

If  aught  be  wrong,  these  things  are  horridly  and 
growingly  wrong  ;  and  where  will  they  end  ?  for 
they  feed  upon  the  best  things  in  the  gospel. 

The  humility  that  doubts  man's  work  ought  not  to 
be  unorthodox  ;  and  why  not  take  man's  orthodoxy 
to  pieces  ?  Mussulmans  and  Boodhist  quietists  we 
have  given  up  ;  Papists  and  superstitious  Greeks  ; 
Ritualists  and  Rationalists  ;  Arminians  and  New 
England  divines  ;  but  have  sketched,  like   Mussul- 

(56) 


Chap.  I.]  Idolatry  a   Universal  Sin.  57 

mans,  our  own  grim-faced    King,  and    called  Him 
Allah. 

Have  we  not  forgotten  one  text  : — *'Fear  God 
AND  KEEP  His  Commandments,  for  this  is  the 
WHOLE  of  Man  .?"•••'••  (Ec.  xii.  13).  And  may  it 
not  be  true  that  God  chooses  to  expose  all  this  ; 
to  show  that  doctrine  is  no  defence  ;  to  proclaim 
that  orthodoxy  can  decay  with  the  blush  upon  its 
cheek  ;  to  expound  how  orthodoxy  can  become  a 
snare  ;  and  to  declare  that  as  the  beautiful  orders 
of  religion  can  be  turned  into  a  curse,  so  can  its 
doctrines  ;  and  that  Ritualists  can  be  joined  by 
DocTRiNALiSTS  OH  a  couimou  ground  of  debauching 
piety  ? 

CHAPTER   I. 

IDOLATRY   A   UNIVERSAL   SIN. 

If  the  Arch  Fiend  intended  to  seduce  us,  would 
he  not  conceal  the  motions  of  superstition,  long 
after  the  taint  had  entered  .'*  Idolatry  is  a  human 
appetite,  native  and  never  absent  from  a  people. 
It  maybe  disguised.  So  it  was  among  the  Israelites  ; 
and  so  it  was  among  the  Fathers  of  the  Forest. 
They  began  monkery,  but  they  did  not  know  it ;  and 
they  began  the  op7LS  operatiLVi,  but  would  have 
shuddered  to  find  it  out.  That  we  have  no  dream 
of  being  beset  by  idols  is,  empirically,  the  mark 
that  should  awaken  our  greediest  suspicions.  We 
have  no  rites,  and  few  symbols,  and  but  two   sacra- 

*  "  Dutv  "  /J-  ill  Italics. 


SS  Fetich.  [Book  HI. 

ments,  and  no  pictures,  and  the  very  fewest  forms 
that  are  possible  in  any  system  of  worship.  We 
have  no  priest,  and  no  shrift,  and  no  keys,  and  no 
powers,  such  as  have  been  understood  among  the 
cult-systems  of  men.  Paul  might  say, — *  I  perceive 
you  seem  to  yourselves  to  be  altogether  unsuper- 
stitious.'  What  has  become  of  superstition  .^  Is  it 
not  general.^  Does  not  Paul  say  (Gal.  v.  19,  20), — 
**The  works  of  the  flesh  are  manifest  v/hich  are 
these — Idolatry,  witchcraft,"  etc.  1  Does  he  not  sum 
up  declension  by  talking  of  **  [changing]  the  glory 
of  the  uncorruptible  God,"  and  of  **  [worshipping 
and  serving]  the  creature  more  than  the  Creator " 
(Rom.  i.  23,  25).-*  And,  unless  men  have  changed 
prodigiously  since  that  day,  where  is  idolatry  with 
us  t  Or  where  with  us  specially  orthodox  (for  we  all 
claim  that)  is  that  special  superstitiousness  which 
Paul  would  say  is  imbedded  in  every  one ;  which  we 
see  breaking  out  in  Ritualists  and  in  the  Papal 
Church,  and  which  we  set  no  guard  on,  and  have 
no  special  thought  for,  among  ourselves } 

CHAPTER   II. 

WHAT   IS   IDOLATRY  ? 

Idolatry  is  worshipping  something  else  than 
the  genuine  Deity. 

Idolatry  is  the  worship  of  idols  ;  and  there  are 
men  that  might  insist  upon  that  as  the  naked  idea. 
But  as  the  worship  of  idols  is  always  with  an  in- 
terior sense,  and   few  worship   the   image    without 


Chap.  IL]  What  is  Idolatry?  59 

some  regard  to  a  Deity  beside,  it  is  safe  enough  to 
suppose  that  idolatry,  as  the  wrong  cult, — that  is, 
as  worshipping  something  not  a  Divinity, — will  be 
sufficiently  accepted  as  the  meaning  of  the  evil. 

Now  what  is  a  wrong  object  ?  Eminently  a  some- 
thing NOT  HOLY.  If  we  might  worship  God  as  pow- 
erful, or  if  we  might  worship  God  as  wise,  if  we 
might  worship  God  as  great,  or,  as  the  Devil  shad- 
ows him  forth,  as  ubiquitous  or  high,  then  it  would 
be  harder  to  find  what  is  the  seed-fact  of  idolatry. 
But  if  we  are  to  worship  God  as  holy,  and  His 
whole  right  over  our  worship  springs  from  His  char- 
acter as  excellent,  then  we  start  into  idolatry  when 
we  drop  even  for  an  instant  the  holiness  from  God. 

Then  another  eventuality  subsists.  Dropping 
holiness,  we  drop  reason.  This  is  clearly  revealed. 
We  turn  the  truth  of  God  into  a  lie,  and  God  gives 
us  up  to  birds  and  four-footed  beasts  and  creeping 
thinsfs. 

o 

Observe  these  two  facts  : — (i)  Idolatry  begins 
ethically ;  that  is,  its  germ  is  set  when  we  turn  away 
the  least  from  holiness.  An  impenitent  man  is  a 
commenced  idolater.  But  idolatry  is  very  thoroughly 
matured  when  we  bereave  God  of  holiness.  (2) 
And  when  this  occurs  the  second  stage  immediately 
follows.  We  are  given  up  to  old  wives'  fables. 
And  reason,  which  might  seem  but  fleshly,  is 
stamped  at  once  with  the  error  we  have  made. 


Co  Fetich.  [Book  III. 


CHAPTER   III. 
Fetich.* 

Fetich  bears  this  last  imprint.  It  is  not  only 
wrong  cult,  but  beastly.  If  I  not  only  de-moralize 
God,  but  turn  him  into  a  pig,  I  grow  irrational.  All 
idolism  is  more  or  less  irrational,  but  it  grows  more 
so  as  it  seats  its  curse.  There  springs  a  miracle  of 
what  is  stupid.  The  classic  Greeks  shall  worship 
Priaps  and  the  Eumenides.  Great  Pharaoh  shall 
bless  an  ape.  And  there  shall  supervene  a  crazy 
streak  upon  the  intellect  of  the  most  cultivated  of  men 

CHAPTER    IV. 

THE   TWO    ATTRIBUTES    OF   FETICH   THE  TWO  ATTRIBUTES   OF   THE 
ABOVE   DESCRIBED  TEN    DOCTRINAL    PROPOSITIONS. 

The  two  attributes  of  Fetich  are  the  turning 
aside  from  a  holy   God,  and  the  being  cursed  for 

*  Fetich  would  seem  a  wrong  word ;  for  a  common  dic- 
tionary would  call  it  a  material  idol.  But  we  prefer  it  for  two 
particulars,  (i)  first  it  is  the  system  as  well  as  an  idol,  for  it  is 
used  for  the  charm-power,  as  well  as  for  a  gree-gree  or  a  shark's 
tooth  or  any  one  fetich.  It  is  a  sailor's  word,  at  best,  put  upon  the 
natives  for  its  sound,  like  their  fetisho  or  Portuguese  feiiico,  which 
means  charm-system  as  well  as  charm  (see  Le  Brosse).  Moreover, 
(2)  it  has  vast  resemblances  with  us,  for  it  is  the  Fetich  of  a  people 
who  believe,  as  we  do,  in  a  Nzambi  or  Great  Divinity.  They 
catch  up  their  fetiches  in  random  ways  from  almost  anything  ;  and 
though  doubtless,  this  origin,  as  of  the  bronzes  in  India,  does  not 
forbid  with  the  low  people  a  more  direct  adoration,  yet  this  mixed 
state  fairly  illustrates  the  mixed  state  and  all  the  more  senseless 
conditions  of  cult-thouG;ht  among  ourselves. 


Chap.  IV.]         Tzvo  AttribiLtes  of  Fetich.  6 1 

that  by  the  most  extreme  irrational  mistake  of  Him. 
The  two  attributes  of  those  statements  were  the 
emptying  of  hoHness  out  of  God,  and  then,  just  as 
Paul  threatens,  the  paralysis  (most  symptomatic  in 
its  look)  of  everything  rational.  Can  the  resem- 
blance be  the  birth  of  chance  }  How  is  that  possi- 
ble .''  Can  our  Church  be  impervious  to  such  mis- 
take .'*  Why  should  we  think  so }  Is  it  too  intelli- 
gent }  Look  at  the  calf  and  the  crocodile  of  the 
high  period  of  Egyptian  civilizatioji.  Is  it  too  pious } 
Look  at  the  primitive  age  :  and  yet  the  mystery  of 
iniquity  did  already  work.  Are  we  too  sudden  in 
this  brutal  lapse  }  because  Nemo  repeitte  Uirpis- 
simiis }  But  look  at  the  long  years  of  younger 
teaching.  Dr.  Hodge  does  but  mature  the  work. 
We  firmly  believe  that  the  origin  of  East  African 
superstition  and  the  origin  of  these  dogmas  of  the 
Church  are  identical  and  one,  and  that  it  behooves 
us  by  everything  that  is  of  the  truth  to  show  that 
these  things  are  not  Calvinism  ;  at  least,  that  if  they 
began  in  the  Calvinistic  books  they  are  not  Paulin- 
ian ;  nay,  that  they  are  not  of  Calvin  in  the  higher 
sense  of  the  Calvinian  thought  ;  that  they  are  not 
of  Dr.  Hodge  in  his  better  teaching ;  that  they  are 
not  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  that  they  are  ripening  and 
crusting  over  and  endangering  our  orthodox  belief ; 
that  they  are  tumors,  and  not  of  the  organized  flesh ; 
that  they  can  be  cut  out,  and  the  creed  will  live  ; 
and  that  it  cannot  be  a  day  too  soon  when  we  come 
back  to  this, — that  God  and  man  are  in  each  other's 
image  (Gen.  i.  26);  that  hoHness  is  an  intelligent 


62  Fetich.  [Book  III. 

trait ;  that  holiness  is  the  secret  of  our  worship  • 
that  hoUness  must  be  the  centre  of  our  creed  ;  and 
that  when  ten  dogmas  take  the  high  places  in  oar 
Temple,  and  are  exempt  of  holiness,  it  is  a  sign  that 
the  Church  is  tainted  with  Fetich,  and  that  she  is  to 
get  her  curse  of  it  in  the  direction  of  her  gangas  or 
doctrinal  chiefs. 

CHAPTER  V. 

HOW  BEST   TO    MAKE   THIS    APPEAR. 

We  are  so  desperately  weak  when  we  utter  such 
things,  that  it  becomes  a  serious  question  how  we  can 
manage  best ;  for  though  we  manage  our  very  best, 
we  are  sure  to  outrage  most  men's  most  settled  con- 
victions, and  so  have  all  the  sting  of  managing  badly. 

Most  men  will  laugh  at  us.  Many  more  will 
turn  away,  and  not  read  a  sentence  after  the  first. 
All  will  have  some  tincture  of  disgust.  To  take  a 
gree-gree  of  the  Congoese,  and  say, — That  is  a  type 
of  long  cherished  doctrines  ;  to  go  into  our  last 
Theology,  and  take  from  the  very  cream  of  its 
results  doctrines  of  their  very  nature  central,  and 
hold  them  up  as  a  mistake,  and  compare  them  with 
the  very  grossest  superstition,  seems  too  mad  to  be 
mere  impudent  affront,  and  to  belong  rather  to  the 
region  of  queerness  and  infatuation. 

What  would  be  the  shrewdest  course  for  a  mind 
awake  to  results,  if  he  wished  to  avoid  unnecessary 
denunciation  }  Not  to  stop,  of  course.  That  would 
be  wicked.  God's  making  everything  for  display  is 
a  grosser  thing  for  a  polished  philosopher  than  the 


Chap.  V.]  Method  of  Treatment.  63 

fish-skin  of  the  Guineaman,  and  there  are  the  com- 
mon absences  in  both, — first  of  hoUness,  and  then  of 
rationahiess, — betokening  a  common  print  of  kindred 
superstition.  How  ought  we  to  act }  Pause  and 
consider  and  be  sure  we  are  right,  and  delay  for 
years  the  scandal  of  such  hazardous  opinion.  And, 
after  that }    Why — broach  it  in  the  most  careful  way. 

And  in  trying  to  find  what  that  is,  we  are  led  by 
instinct  to  consider,  first,  FeticJi  in  Practice.  There 
certainly  the  Church  is  Idolatrous.  And  as  the 
Church  does  not  think  herself  idolatrous,  and  rarely 
speaks  of  it,  and  in  all  this  wide  province  of  sin 
rarely  makes  any  confession,  perhaps'  that  may 
begin  the  suspicion.  Some  may  agree  that  there 
may  be  a  great  deal  of  idolatry,  for  the  cause  and 
by  the  very  reason  that  we  are  unwarned  of  any. 

At  least,  then,  we  are  idolatrous  practically. 

And  having  established  that,  past  all  possibility 
of  mistake,  it  will  make  us  stronger  about  Fetich  in 
Doctrine.  We  will  afterward  go  further  still,  and  find 
we  have  FeticJi  in  Order.  And  these,  therefore,  will 
head  our  remaining  books  :  —  Fetich  in  Practice, 
which  we  will  have  no  fear  not  to  make  thoroughly 
confessed  ;  Fetich  in  Doctrine,  which  will  involve 
the  Ten  Doctrines  which  we  are  more  thoroughly 
to  discuss  ;  and  after  that,  Fetich  in  Order;  show- 
ing that  the  same  bony  finger  of  superstition  is 
pushed, — and  for  the  same  cause, — to  shrivel  and 
spirit-away  the  Church. 


BOOK   IV. 

FETICH     IN     PRACTICE. 
CHAPTER   I. 

THE   BIBLE   A   FETICH. 

God  may  become  a  Fetich,  but  only  by  ceasing 
to  be  a  real  God,  and  by  becoming  a  false  Divinity. 
The  Bible  may  become  a  Fetich,  and  remain  a  real 
Bible  :  of  course  we  have  no  other.  A  real  Bible  is 
a  wonderful  book  both  in  the  province  of  reason  and 
holiness.  In  the  province  of  reason  it  has  a  geog- 
raphy of  its  own.  Where  this  book  sells  itself,  print 
and  paper  and  calf-skin  though  it  be,  there  is  the 
world's  nobility.  Take  a  pencil,  and  go  to  a  com- 
mon globe,  and  draw  the  lines  within  which  the 
Bible  is  read,  and  those  portions  of  our  planet  can 
sell  and  buy  and  govern  and  out-think  and  out-gen- 
eral all  the  rest.  Reason,  even  where  it  derides  the 
book,  yet  seems  to  nestle  in  lands  where  it  is  kept 
and  printed. 

Holiness  has  a  still  more  wonderful  geography. 
It  has  a  Land  where  all  are  holy,  and  an  Age  which 
is  to  last  forever  ;  and  in  all  the  wonders  of  that 
Land,  whether  of  mind  or  matter,  whether  of  intel- 
lect or  conscience,  there  is  no  inhabitant  that  has 
not  been  made  such  by  the  Bible.  Even  Seth  and 
Enoch  had  some    chapters    of  it.      And  here  is  a 

(64) 


Chap,  n.]  Prayer  a  FcticJi.  65 

book,  manufactured  of  pen  or  type,  that  the  millions 
of  the  saints  know  something  of  in  the  work  of  their 
salvation. 

Now,  it  is  the  religion  of  Protestants.  But  how 
easy  to  let  reason  and  holiness  go  out  of  it,  and  to 
use  it  afterward  for  a  wretched  fetichism. 

The  mother  gives  it  to  her  son  ;  and  in  a  war  or 
on  a  distant  journey  hides  it  in  his  trunk,  or  binds 
him  to  read  it  daily. 

He  does  so. 

I  do  not  mean  that  he  ought  not  to  do  it,  or  that 
the  mother  ought  not  to  do  all  she  does,  and  to  se- 
cure by  all  means  this  elaily  use  of  it.  She  ought, 
beyond  all  question.  But  what  supervenes  }  Why, 
in  a  thousand  instances,  a  mere  fetich.  The  boy 
reads,  and  it  is  his  idolism,  like  bowing  to  an  image. 
He  does  not  feel,  and  he  does  not  think,  and  he 
does  not  remember.  Ask  him,  and  he  does  not 
know  what  he  read.  He  stands  up  by  the  gas  at 
night,  and  reads  a  chapter.  It  is  his  cult.  It  is  the 
tribute  he  pays  each  day  to  his  religion.  And  he 
throws  himself  upon  his  bed,  empty  of  anything  that 
has  been  meant  except  a  growing  need  of  some  just 
such  idolatrous  superstition. 

And  so  of  Prayer  : — 

CHAPTER  II. 

PRAYER   A   FETICH. 

Prayer  is,  perhaps,  half  of  piety :  I  mean  by 
that, — Prayer  is,  perhaps,  half  the  means  that  a 
man  has  to  build  up  his  religion. 


66  Fetich  in  Practice.  [BookIV. 

Prayer  is,  perhaps,  half  our  usefulness.  The 
twelve,  when  they  appointed  deacons,  said, — *'  We 
will  give  ourselves  to  prayer,  and  to  the  ministry  of 
the  word  "  (Acts  vi.  4).  They  place  prayer  first. 
Prayer,  perhaps,  is  half  of  any  man's  possible  useful- 
ness.    No  wonder,  therefore,  that  men  value  prayer. 

The  same  boy  that  keeps  a  Bible  by  his  gas- 
light, dashes  down  afterward,  and  says  his  prayers. 
But  ask  him  three  minutes  afterward,  when  he  is  in 
bed,^— My  son,  what  did  you  pray  for }  and  he  will 
pass  his  hand  over  his  eyes, — and  he  will  be  puzzled 
to  say.  Recollect,  this  is  his  prayer.  His  mother  has 
been  bent  that  he  should  make  it.  Recollect,  it  is 
talking  to  the  Almighty.  If  there  is  anything  more 
solemn  on  the  earth  I  scarcely  know  it.  And  it  is 
because  it  is  so  solemn,  he  prays  ;  just  as  because 
it  is  so  solemn,  the  Congo-man  keeps  hard  tied-on 
his  shark-tooth  Deity.  But  notice  the  elements  that 
are  absent,  (i)  There  is  no  holiness  in  it,  for  he  is 
a  dissipated  boy;  and  (2)  there  is  no  reason  in  it, 
for  he  merely  mumbles  it.  It  is  his  fetich.  So 
here,  in  the  very  heart  of  what  is  orthodox,  there  is  a 
distinct  and  confessed  idolatry. 


CHAPTER   IIL 

SERIOUSNESS   A   FETICH. 

Men,  when  they  get  religion,  become  serious. 
Men  notice  that,  and  it  becomes  an  index  of  re- 
ligion.    They  make  a  list  of  who  are  serious. 


CnAP.  IV,]  Profession  a  Fetich.  Gy 

Man  is  a  proselyting  enginery,  and  if  men  stay 
serious  we  are  fain  to  think  they  are  reUgious. 

We  will  not  paint  too  tediously.  What  bystand- 
ers encourage  the  man  himself  may  eagerly  con- 
sider. 

There  are  certain  gestures  of  the  pious, — a  cer- 
tain motion  of  the  eyes  and  a  certain  raising  of  the 
hands  and  a  certain  settling  of  the  face,  which  men 
learn,  and  which  in  their  appearances  in  church 
become  the  indicia  of  piety.  What  else  can  the 
Church  generally  judge  by  }  These  symbols  react 
upon  themselves.  They  deepen  and  become  more 
express ;  they  settle  and  become  inwrought ;  they 
characterize,  and  give  identity  to,  their  possessor. 
Like  all  outward  signs,  they  grow  too  valuable,  and 
are  mistaken  for  something  else  ;  and,  unless  open 
rascality  unmask  the  fraud,  the  man  may  wear,  like 
a  fish-skin  about  his  neck,  his  gravity  as  the  whole 
of  his  salvation. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

PROFESSION    A   FETICH. 

The  Bible  had  peculiar  idioms.  In  Eastern 
lands  men  bargained  by  their  speech.  They  used 
outward  symbols.  Their  merchants  were  travellers,  ■•'" 
and,  therefore,  in  nomadic  ways  made  bargains  with 
their  mouth  and  less  with  the  solemnity  of  pen  and 
record.  Hence  human  conduct  came  to  be  depicted 
by  the  forms   of  utterance.     Paul  says, — "  If  thou 

*  Travellers,  therefore,  came  to  mean  merchants  (Gen.  xxiii.  i6). 


68  Fetich  in  Practice.  [Book  IV. 

shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus  "  (Rom. 
X.  9).  Christ  says, — *'  Whosoever  speaketh  against 
the  Holy  Ghost"  (Matt.  xii.  32).  Solomon  declares, 
that  **  death  and  life  are  in  the  power  of  the  tongue  " 
(Prov.  xviii.  21);  and  all  through  the  Proverbs  a 
man  is  said  to  have  "joy  by  the  answer  of  his 
mouth"  (xv.  23).. 

We  have  drifted  into  other  modes  of  putting  the 
matter  in  Western  languages  ;  but,  alas  for  us  !  we 
keep  the  snare  which  such  an  exaggeration  of  the 
power  of  speech  is  fitted  to  convey. 

Profession  is  a  terrible  snare  to  us.  It  puts  us 
down  among  the  saints.  It  causes  us  to  be  treated 
as  though  forgiven.  It  moves  towards  us  ghostly 
ceremonies.  It  embalms  us  in  the  cerements  of 
the  blessed. 

Who  ever  repents  after  a  profession  } 

The  Church  may  shake  our  hold  if  we  disgrace 
her.  But  if  we  are  moral  men,  like  Jews  and  Pa- 
pists we  have  an  established  place,  and  it  is  hard 
after  that  to  reach  us  as  impenitent. 

And  yet  how  lightly  we  professed ! 

When  we  remember  how  sanguinely  men  some- 
times join  the  Church,  and  how  they  promise  them- 
selves afterward  to  make  up  what  they  feel  they  need, 
and  how  profession  grows  to  them  and  becomes  a 
badge  of  grace,  we  look  at  this  as  perhaps  more 
than  anything  else  showing  how  the  orthodox  may 
have  a  fetich,  and  how  holiness  may  be  thrust  aside, 
and  a  mere  act  rank  it  in  the  number  of  our  evi- 
dences. 


Chap.  V.]  Almsgiving  a  Fetich.  69 


CHAPTER   V. 

ALMSGIVING   A   FETICH. 

Almsgiving  has  either  of  two  motives, — either, 
first,  benevolence,  or  second,  a  desire  of  gain. 
Almsgiving,  as  benevolence,  is  itself  of  the  very 
nature  of  holiness.  Almsgiving  for  gain,  is,  of  course, 
nothing  of  the  kind.  But  see  how  this  descends 
into  the  most  insidious  details.  Men  may  do  alms 
with  no  notion  of  display  ;  they  may  have  gotten-by 
that ;  nay,  for  no  worldly  recompense.  It  is  astonish- 
ing how  fine  the  influence  may  have  become.  They 
may  seem  the  most  serious  and  the  most  austere 
believers.  They  may  seem  entirely  devoted  as  by 
their  inward  sacrament.  They  may  have  heard  of 
recompense,  in  heaven,  and  may  not  give  alms  even 
for  that  high-set  and  far  more  distant  retribution. 
And  yet  they  may  not  have  a  spark  of  piety.  They 
may  give  alms  as  of  the  nature  of  the  proof  that 
they  are  pious.  They  may  give  alms  as  part  of  the 
machinery  by  which  they  hope  to  be  forgiven.  They 
have  been  warned  that  they  must  not  do  it  for 
recompense  and,  therefore,  they  do  not  do  it  for 
recompense,  even  as  brightening  their  crown  and 
increasing  their  bliss  among  the  sanctified.  But 
they  do  it  to  be  sanctified.  It  is  astonishing  how 
near  we  can  come  without  our  real  motive  being 
holiness.  They  do  not  do  it  for  benevolence,  and 
they  do  not  do  it  for  their  love  of  right,  and  they  do 
not  do  it  for  a  desire  of  right  in  the  «ense  of  being 


70  Fetich  ill  Practice.  [Book  IV. 

made  holy,  but  they  do  it  as  required  of  piety. 
They  do  it  as  they  go  to  church,  and  as  they  wear  a 
long  face,  and  as  they  witness  a  fair  profession, — 
as  what  they  are  taught  as  the  A.  B.  C.  of  works, 
and  as  what  they  are  willing  for  as  the  condition  of 
salvation. 

There  is  nothing  more  terrible  than  how  the 
ship  can  be  laid  near  the  port,  and  how  indistin- 
guishable the  phases  of  possible  deception. 

The  test  of  piety  is  holiness.  All  else  is  fetich. 
The  closer  character  can  be  brought  to  this  (I  mean 
when  it  is  articulately  another  thing),  the  more  dan- 
gerous the  mistake,  and  the  more  serviceable,  in 
the  symptoms  that  it  offers,  in  the  diagnosis  that  is 
yet  before  us. 

CHAPTER   VI. 

TREACHING   A   FETICH. 

It  was,  perhaps,  thirty  thousand  sermons  that 
I  saw  marked  the  other  day  as  preached  every 
Sunday  in  the  Islands  of  Great  Britain.  This 
makes  fifteen  hundred  thousand  annually.  It  was 
said  that  as  many  were  preached  in  our  own  land. 

Preaching  is  a  wonderful  institution. 

And  yet  Paul  never  preached  a  sermon. 

We  value  the  chance  in  distinctu  of  saying  a 
word  on  this  great  and  most  venerable,  and  yet 
fearfully  misquoted,  and  dangerously  overestimated, 
usage  of  our  religion. 

Paul  praises  tJie  Chuych.     He  says  it  is  '*  the  pil- 


Chap.  VI.]  Preaching  a  Fetich.  yi 

lar  and  ground  of  the  truth  "  (i  Tim.  iii.  15).  He 
means  by  that  that  it  treasures  it, — that  it  is  its  Great 
Librarian.  He  ennobles  the  parents'  work,  and 
makes  it  vital.  "  Children,  obey  your  parents  in  the 
Lord  for  that  is  right.  Honor  your  father  and 
mother  which  is  the  first  commandment  IN  promise." 
When  he  gets  into  the  arena  of  the  word  he  takes 
care  to  say  that  it  is  to  be  promulged  in  every  pos- 
sible way.  That  he  took  a  text,  and  preached  in  our 
style  of  discourse,  we  have  no  knowledge  ;  but  that 
he  taught  in  all  possible  forms  ;  writing  letters ; 
making  public  harangues  ;  speaking  late  at  night,  as 
when  the  young  man  fell  from  the  window  ;  disput- 
ing daily  in  the  school  of  one  Tyrannus ;  talking  to 
soldiers  tied  fast  to  him  ;  standing  before  Felix  and 
Agrippa  ;  and  seeking  interviews  with  families,  and 
with  them  of  Caesar's  house, — we  know ;  and  when 
he  talks  on  homiletics,  he  talks  in  like  way.  He 
tells  Timothy  to  be  ''  instant  in  season,  out  of  sea- 
son "  (2  Timothy  iv.  2).  He  seems  designed  in 
Providence  to  break  up  all  chance  of  homiletic  su- 
perstition. He  tells  Timothy  to  *'  reprove,  rebuke, 
exhort  with  -all  long-suffering,"  and,  what  is  very  ex- 
press, "  all  teaching."  It  would  seem  impossible 
that  we  are  to  glean  from  this  one  recipe  of  speech. 

And  yet  what  has  been  the  Church's  inference  ? 

Most  solemnly  this, — That  the  sermons  on  the 
Sunday  are  the  special  instrument  of  salvation. 

We  hear  a  minister  say  that  he  has  converted 
two  thousand  souls. 

There  have   been  pious  parents,  and   countless 


72  FeticJi  in  Practice.  [Book.  IV. 

ministrations  of  the  church,  all  of  which  Paul 
praises  as  the  very  pillar  of  the  faith,  and  yet  some 
semi-centennial  will  give  a  positive  list  and  say,  that 
two  thousand  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  souls 
have  been  some  old  man's  spiritual  children.  He 
may  be  a  miserable  preacher.  He  may  be  covertly 
known  as  inefficient  in  his  gifts.  He  may  be 
secretly  felt  to  be  an  incubus  on  the  house  of  prayer. 
And  yet,  simply  copying  from  the  roster  of  the 
clerk,  he  sweeps  all  in  as  though  they  were  saved  by 
preaching. 

And  now  the  warrant ! 

Paul  does  say, — "  It  pleased  God  by  preaching  to 
save  them  that  believe"  (i  Cor.  i.  21).  But  mark 
the  family  likeness.  Christ  says, — **  Except  ye  eat 
the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man"  (Jo.  vi.  53).  We  are 
told, — **  Baptism  doth  now  save  us"  (i  Pet.  iii.  21). 
How  do  we  guard  against  those  idolatries  .'*  It  is 
easier  in  the  instance  of  preaching,  because  mipvaau)^ 
the  very  word  itself,  had  no  technical  phase  in  the 
days  of  the  Apostle.  It  meant  heralding  in  all  pos- 
sible sense.  When  he  wrote,  he  preached.  When 
he  rebuked  Peter,  he  preached.  When  he  dre'w 
out  formal  systems,  he  was  a  Kripv^  in  the  sense  of 
our  Redeemer.  And,  therefore,  in  the  original 
charge, — **  Go  ye  into  all  the  world — and  preach  " 
(Mark  xvi.  15),  there  immediately  stands  the  gloss, 
of  6i6aGK(i),uv  or  making  disciples  (Matt,  xxviii.  19). 

Better  say, — Parents  have  done  the  work.  Min- 
isters have  turned  the  hearts  of  parents  to  children, 
and  in  ten  thousand  ways  of  Sunday   Schools   and 


CiiAr.  VI.]  Preaching  a  Fetich.  73 

admonitory  teaching  the  Church  has  elevated  her 
saints.  This  sounds  hke  rationahiess.  The  old 
man's  fantasy  sounds  Hke  fetich.  We  simply  chal- 
lenge any.  right  to  it.  If  Paul  himself  never  preach- 
ed ;  and  I  press  attention  to  that  :  if  he  leaned  all 
upon  the  word,  and  asked, — ''  How  can  they  hear 
without  a  preacher.^"  but  made  himself  specially 
versatile  and  maniform  in  his  talk,  and  threw  him- 
self into  every  attitude  for  discoursing  on  the  gos- 
pel, how  crusted  our  pulpit  mode,  and  superstitious 
the  claims  that  are  to  be  built  on  its  Sunday  minis- 
trations ! 

(i.)  They  breed  contempt.  Men  see  that  they 
trace  influa^ices  to  the  wrong  efficiency. 

(2.)  They  breed  neglect.  Others  turn  from 
their  own  private  duties  to  the  ministry  that  is  to 
work  so  much. 

(3.)  They  breed  delay.  Men  cease  all  lower 
methods  in  this  zeal  for  the  sacred  desk. 

It  has  all  the  symptoms  of  the  gree-gree  and  the 
Ebo.  For  though  it  is  glorious — this  modern  habit 
of  sermons  in  the  church,  yet  all  our  use  of  them 
beyond  their  value  as  a  most  rational  arrangement 
of  the  Word,  is  just  as  much  a  superstitious  wicked- 
ness as  the  shark's  tooth  and  the  eel's  skin  of  the 
Nzambi  worship. 

And  this  is  most  fatal  when  transported  among 
the  heathen. 

We  were  present  years  ago  in  a  Baptist  Court 
where  it  was  decided  that  there  should  be  no  more 
schools  among  the  heathen.  Large  schools  in 
4 


74  Fetich  in  Practice.  [Book.  IV. 

India  had  long  existed ;  and  the  missionaries  who 
had  originally  founded  them  were  present,  and  had 
come  for  their  defence.  They  had  presented  in  the 
most  touching  ways  the  evidences  of  -God's  favor  to 
their  work.  I  was  amazed  when  any  one  rose  on 
the  other  side.  The  argument  was  that  preaching 
was  the  means  of  grace.  As  though  it  were  some 
charmed  touch,  men  argued  as  though  we  had  only  to 
leave  it  to  the  Almighty.  Though  it  might  be  in 
stammering  speech  ;  though  it  might  be  irrational 
to  dream  of  its  success ;  though  it  might  be  hardly 
understood,  and,  from  difference  of  vocal  idiom, 
wretchedly  out  of  place,  yet  men  talked  as  though 
it  should  be  followed  up  at  fairs  and  bazaars,  and  as 
though  we  should  scatter  it  as  it  was,  whether  men 
might  hear  or  whether  they  might  forbear. 

I  was  still  further  amazed  when  these  views 
were  those  of  the  Court.  And  when  grave  mission- 
aries of  Christ  wept  over  the  vote,  and  finally  declared 
that  they  could  not  sacrifice  their  usefulness,  and 
gave  notice  of  their  withdrawal  to  glean  what  they 
could  and  to  labor  under  the  care  of  certain 
English  friends,  we  received  an  impression  that  we 
have  never  lost,  of  Fetich  in  the  orthodox  Church. 

We  heard  the  like  argument  but  the  other  week, 
that  it  was  wrong  to  have  schools  among  the 
heathen.  It  was  by  a  venerable  Presbyterian. 
"Schools  may  look  well  to  human  reason,  but  God 
has  chosen  preaching.  We  have  no  right  to  go 
back  of  God.  Peter  obeyed  God,  and  preached,  and 
converted  three  thousand  men  on  the  day  of  Pente- 


Chap.  VI.]  PreacJiing  a  Fetich.  75 

cost  (see  Hodge's  Theol.,  ii.  p.  345).  What  if  he 
had  been  an  advocate  of  schools  }  "  And  so  benumb- 
ing are  the  mfluences  of  these  sorts  of  long  growing 
superstition,  that  men  are  petrified,  as  they  are  said 
to  be  under  the  mesmeric  touch.  Who  said  that 
Peter  converted  three  thousand  men  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost .?  We  are  expressly  told  the  opposite. 
Who  said  that  God  had  chosen  preaching  t  There 
was  no  preaching  in  any  sense  that  was  exclusive 
for  hundreds  of  years.  Who  said  that  we  were  to 
scatter  preaching,  trusting  to  a  miraculous  power } 
On  the  contrary,  God  had  ordered  for  it  by  the  most 
rational  means.  He  had  made  the  whole  world  a 
school.  He  had  ripened  it  with  an  Augustan  wealth. 
He  sent  all  over  it  the  Jews.  He  had  filled  it  with 
Jewish  synagogues.  What  was  rational  could 
hardly  more  have  been  attended  to  in  preparation 
for  the  coming  of  Christ.  And  when  Peter  preach- 
ed he  preached  not  at  cross-roads  and  to  heathenish 
pilgrimages,  but  at  synagogues.  The  Lord  had 
graciously  prepared  for  him  by  religious  schools. 
And  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  he  was  not  preaching 
to  Pagans  but  to  saints.  The  largest  number  were 
perhaps  intelligent  believers.  It  is  not  certain  that 
he  converted  one  of  them.  For  we  are  told  that 
they  were  Parthians,  Medes,  etc.,  devout  men  out 
of  every  nation  under  heaven  (Acts  ii.  5,  9).  What 
a  noble  preparation  for  any  enterprise  !  And  now, 
when  we  go  among  the  heathen,  and  neglect  what 
our  Lord  says, — ''  Go  not  from  house  to  house  ;  " 
when  we  fail  to  sec   in    this   wdiat   its   quaint  image 


76  Fetich  in  Practice.  [Book.  IV. 

meant,  that  we  are  to  begin  like  a  fire  on  a  hearth 
and  smoulder  gradually  outward  ;  that  we  are  to  have 
our  rational  attempts  ;  that  we  are  not  to  go  among 
brutes,  and  throw  religion  at  them  as  Peter  did  not 
do  even  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  trusting  that  God 
will  bless  His  own  word  ;  that  we  are  to  remember 
that  Paul  went  straight  to  synagogues,  and  had  no 
such  difficulties  as  we  have  on  heathen  shores, — we 
are  unready  (even  without  Paul's  miracles  to  help) 
to  use  Paul's  humbler  means  for  the  building  of  the 
gospel. 

Schools,  men  suspect. 

Forty  years  ago  if  we  had  relied  on  schools, 
where  should  we  be  now }  If  leaving  Hawaii,  where 
there  are  few  to  teach,  and  where  the  race  decays, 
we  had  gone  to  broad  continents,  and  laid  deep 
schemes  like  the  children  of  this  world  ;  if  we  had 
erected  Paul  into  our  beacon,  and  coveted  Paul's 
**  synagogues,"  and  created  something  like  Paul's 
synagogue-schools,  God  Himself  would  be  more  in 
league  with  us  ;  for  He  follows  just  these  schemes 
of  influence.  He  begins  low  down,  even  with  the 
young.  He  builds  slowly  out  like  the  forest  from 
the  seed.  He  works  slowly  forward,  beginning  with 
the  very  least ;  and  hence  the  huge  results  of  these 
compacted  and  unwasted  increments. 

We  have  ideaUzed  a  figment ;  for  we  have  wor- 
shipped preaching,  and  preaching,  when  we  come 
to  see,  is  really  no  one  thing  at  all. 

And,  furthermore,  the  Church's  prayers  and  her 
ministers'    earnest  labor  having   been    promised  a 


Chap.  VII.]  Faith  a  Fetich.  77 

reward,  the  very  nature  of  the  reward  is  indicative 
of  the  Church's  bUuider.  God  rewards  by  pushing 
the  Church's  work  out  of  the  way.  By  colonies  in 
Africa  and  from  among  the  Chinese,  by  changes  in 
Japan  and  among  the  Papal  States,  by  civilization, 
as  in  Brazil,  and  by  steam-travel  and  telegraph  alli- 
ance all  over  the  earth,  God  has  listened  to  the 
prayers  of  His  people,  and  hinted  that  these  secular 
results  should  be  imitated  more  than  they  have  been 
in  the  conduct  of  the  Sanctuary. 

Brahm  is  intolerant.  He  allows  no  usurpation 
of  his  place.  Preaching  is  the  appointed  means. 
And  if  this  is  exegetically  a  mistake,  and  Kvpvaaeiv 
takes  in  all  plans  even  down  to  godliness  in  our  per- 
sonal behavior ;  then  preaching  is  a  fetich,  and 
glorious  means  for  the  extension  of  the  truth  have 
been  paralytically  held  back  for  these  Sunday  min- 
istrations. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

FAITH     A     FETICH. 

We  have  had  some  executions  lately  which  rouse 
a  suspicion,  which  we  wish  to  think  of,  that  faith 
itself  may  be  idolatrous. 

Conversion  may  be  at  any  hour,  and  of  the  most 
desperate  of  the  wicked. 

This  we  agree  to. 

Conversion  of  whomsoever,  and  out  of  whatso- 
ever of  which  we  can  form  any  judgment,  and 
wherever   as  concerns  time   and   place,  is  a  thing 


yS  FciicJi  in  Practice.  [Book.  IV. 

that  we  are  to  consider  possible ;  only  we  hold 
that  this  amazing  mercifulness  makes  more  critical 
the  question  of  the  reality. 

When  a  man  murders  hellishly,  and  goes  to  jail 
with  the  most  profound  indifference !  when  he  trusts 
his  lawyer  and  a  blunted  court,  and  lies  fearfully  as 
a  method  of  deliverance  !  when  he  feigns  insanity, 
and  curses  Christ,  and  continues  this  to  the  very 
edge  of  execution  !  what  are  we  to  think  of  a  faith 
that  springs  up  out  of  the  very  soil  of  horrid  blas- 
phemy in  time  to  save  him  t  What  are  we  to  think 
of  whole  rows  of  such  events  } 

Is  there  not  a  flaw  somewhere  in  our  theory  of 
faith } 

The  Israelite  was  made  whole  by  simply  looking 
at  the  Serpent ;  but  then  the  serpents  had  a  fiery 
sting,  and  he  had  to  feel  that,  before  he  would  con- 
sent to  be  delivered.  Do  these  men  feel  the  stinsf 
of  sin  before  they  tell  us  on  the  gallows  of  their  cer- 
tainty to  be  delivered  1 

What  strange  spectacles  those  have  been — men 
convicted  of  the  meanest  crime  telling  everybody 
that  they  cordially  forgave  them  !  There  is  a  like- 
ness in  each  case.  The  feeling  does  not  seem  to 
be  a  withering  conviction.  They  are  not  shrinking 
from  the  gaze  and  shuddering  under  a  sensitiveness 
to  their  horrid  iniquity,  but  they  are  thinking  of 
themselves.  Their  hope  seems  to  be  a  willingness 
to  die,  and  their  uppermost  thought  what  they  may 
look  for  when  in  heaven. 

May  there  not  be  a  horrid  idolatry  in  this  t 


Chap.  VII.]  FaitJi  a  Fetich.  79 

Ministers  lend  themselves  to  such  scenes,  and 
are  the  very  point  d'appid  of  this  ghastly  comfort. 

The  shudder  of  the  mob,  and  instinctive  gain- 
saying at  such  spectacles  of  confidence  ;  the  incred- 
ulous shaking  of  the  head,  and  smile  of  bated  disre- 
spect ; — what  does  all  that  mean }  Wickedness 
perhaps  ;  but  then,  to  us,  a  ground  for  legitimate 
suspicion.  Can  it  be  that  these  weekly  gibbets 
reveal  a  faith  that  was  intended  in  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel ? 

We  believe  that  faith  may  be  a  convenient  fetich. 
If  we  would  characterize  that  we  would  say,  that  it 
is  neither  (i)  holy  nor  (2)  rational.  Regeneration 
is  a  moral  work.  We  cannot  believe  till  we  are 
regenerated.  If  we  believe,  we  are  penitent.  We 
cannot  believe  that  these  are  accidental  facts,  but 
that  the  nature  of  faith  is  moral,  like  being  born 
again. 

What  moral  faith  has  been  bred  upon  the  gal- 
lows ?  The  noblest,  if  it  be  the  work  of  God  ;  the 
humblest,  if  He  has  decreed  salvation  ;  the  most 
real  as  within  the  possibilities  in  the  case  ;  but  what 
are  the  probabilities  1  If  it  be  known  that  there  is 
a  most  cunning  counterfeit,  and,  morever,  the  ingre- 
dients are  all  categorically  given  ; — first,  fear,  melt- 
ing a  man  like  wax  on  the  edge  of  the  fire  ;  second- 
arily, knowledge,  telling  a  man  all  he  needs  in 
respect  to  a  complete  salvation  ;  thirdly,  hope,  and 
fourthly,  despair,  giving  him  no  other  hope,  and 
shutting  him  up  to  mercy  in  the  gospel  plan  ;  what 
part  is  wanting  of  a  high  and  earnest  faith  that  could 


8o  Fetich  in  Practice.  [Book  IV. 

at  all  distinguish  it  ?      None,  certainly,  except  the 
moral  part. 

.  And  of  this  we  can  detect  the  absence,  when  we 
watch  him  narrowly.  He  is  thinking  of  what  he  is 
to  receive  ;  not  of  his  wickedness.  Pardon  and  new 
born  peace  and  fresh-bought  right  to  happiness  rise 
upon  his  lips.  And  there  are  priests  of  a  hypocrit- 
ical religion  (ignorantly  such)  who  help  him.  These 
men  want  to  know  if  he  is  willing  to  die  ;  and  if  he 
die  triumphantly,  as  hundreds  do,  the  scene  of  that 
triumph  seems  to  carry  all  away  from  the  question 
whether  there  has  been  any  shame  for  sin  or  tender 
brokenness  of  heart  for  all  he  has  committed. 

There  must  be  a  better  faith. 

Religion  is  a  total  renovation  (the  Bible  is 
express) ;  a  new  birth  ;  a  rising  from  the  dead ;  a 
second  time  to  be  created.  It  is  the  change  of  all 
imaginable  changes, — out  of  darkness  into  light. 
Faith  must  come  out  of  it.  To  take  a  man's  head 
upon  our  lap  when  he  has  been  dashed  out  of  a 
broken  rail-carriage,  and  whisper  that  he  has  nothing 
but  to  believe,  is  all  true  undoubtedly,  but  Oh  be 
careful  how  we  emphasize  that  word,  nothing.  Every- 
thing may  be  transacted ;  that  I  know ;  everything 
forgiven  :  I  do  not  dare  to  say  that  everything  may 
not  be  done,  as  the  blood  pours  out  upon  the  grass. 
But  I  do  say, — Satan  revels  at  such  death-doors, 
kindling  the  very  readiest  deceits,  and  encouraging 
the  vile  who  are  there  to  witness  it. 

Religion  is  moral.  Faith  is  an  act  of  it.  Par- 
doned, I  am  converted.     Conversion  goes   down  to 


Chap,  vn.]  Faith  a  Fetich.  8 1 

the  very  bottom,  and  is  a  moral  revolution  of  heart. 
Faith,  therefore,  is  a  moral  vision.  And  if  the  soul, 
come  to  the  brink,  has  but  two  minutes  till  it  pass 
into  the  other  world,  I  must  make  that  moral  fact 
appear.  Faith  is  a  new  vision.  And  all  I  tell  the 
sinner,  as  his  soul  is  passing  away,  is  to  look  to 
Christ.  Christ  can  give  him  that  moral  apprehen- 
sion. And  yet  I  must  tell  him,  Christ  must  give  it, 
— will,  but  must, — ivill  give  it  if  he  cry  earnestly  for 
succor,  but  imist,  or  the  soul  is  lost.  A  repentance 
which  is  an  act  of  faith,  and  a  faith  which  is  an  act 
of  penitence,  must  both  be  given,  or  the  soul  can- 
not enter  into  the  presence  of  the  Master. 

The  want  of  this  is  peopling  the  church  with 
hypocrites. 

And  if  any  man  says, — There  is  no  time  for  this. 
This  poor  soul  is  bleeding  out  upon  the  turf;  behold, 
now,  the  very  nature  of  the  fetich !  how  it  tempts 
men  to  put  off  the  day  of  grace  ;  and  when  the  dan- 
ger comes,  narrows  in  the  faith  to  a  mere  glimmer- 
ing of  the  old  intelligence. 

Let  all  men  cry  for  pity,  and  when  they  cry,  let 
it  be  known  that  Christ  will  hear  them,  but  while 
that  cry  haeret  in  cortice,  let  it  be  known  that  it  is  a 
mere  burst  of  terror.  God  will  hear  a  mere  out-cry 
of  terror.  But  let  it  be  known,  when  it  is  no  more 
than  this,  it  may  be  precious,  but  it  is  not  faith. 
And  when  it  is  not  thought  of  till  the  last,  it  may 
be  but  the  selfish  brokenness  of  a  soul  in  its  horror 
when  it  comes  to  perish. 


82  Fetich  in  Practice.  [Book  IV. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

REPENTANCE   A   FETICH. 

Repentance,  therefore,  may  be  also  a  fetich. 

It  is  astonishing  what  a  counterfeit  may  spring 
from  spiritual  terror.  Fear  is  not  a  part  of  religion, 
— in  fact,  perfect  love  casteth  out  fear ;  but  fear  is  a 
"  sorrow  for  sin,"  and  in  a  very  thorough  and  honest 
way  there  is  scarce  any  greater  ''  change  of  mind." 

The  victim  on  the  scaffold  feels  like  an  altered 
man  ;  and  when  the  ministers  are  speaking  and 
press  hopefully  the  methods  of  salvation,  his  is  a 
new  life,  which  may  break  forth  into  the  most  joy- 
ful shouts,  and  into  the  most  tumultuous  agitation, 
as  he  waits  to  be  launched  away. 

How  can  I  say  to  such  a  man  anything  wiser, 
even  though  it  be  in  the  article  of  death,  than  that 
repentance  is  moral.'* 

And  so  of  all  the  things  of  which  we  have  been 
speaking,  the  Pulpit,  and  Faith,  and  Repentance,  if 
I  let  them  drift  and  separate  themselves,  one  deso- 
lates the  other.  If  I  make  the  pulpit  mystic,  men 
send  their  sons  to  it  as  they  do  to  a  doctor  or  to 
school.  We  remit  moral  nurture.  Here,  in  the 
spired  synagogue,  is  the  charm  that  brings  deliver- 
ance :  life  at  this  rate  is  always  at  a  crisis.  And 
caring  less  for  morals,  and  more  for  revivals  and 
great  rare  occasions  in  the  sanctuary,  we  adjourn 
personal  watch,  and  treat  our  virtues  as  though  they 
were  mere  insubmission  to  the  gospel. 


Chap.  IX.]  TJic  Rationale  of  FcticJi.  83 

Then  faith  crowns  the  building.  Treat  that 
outside  of  hohness,  and  the  mischief  becomes  com- 
plete. Religion  becomes  an  orgy  like  the  phan- 
tasms of  the  Greeks, — like  some  bottom  land  pro- 
ducing a  ranker  jungle.  Would  you  see  the  symp- 
toms }  look  around  :  believers  in  the  Church,  rascals 
in  the  market-place ;  men's  minds  made  selfish  even 
by  the  gospel  as  a  scaffolding  for  heaven,  like  Babel, 
to  lift  them  above  the  deluge  ;  Christ  a  convenient 
rock  ;  faith  a  mere  carnal  scheme ;  repentance  a 
mere  trading  debt ;  and  a  thorough  radical  reform 
no  part  intrinsically  of  the  doctrine  of  salvation. '•'•" 

CHAPTER  IX. 

THE    RATIONALE   OF   FETICH. 

Before  proceeding  next  to  Fetich  in  Doctrine 
we  wish  to  interpolate  another  step  in  our  analysis, 
viz.,  the  Rationale  of  Fetich  itself  We  have  seen 
(p.  56)  how  the  man  of  medicine  must  have  a 
double  search,  first,  after  the  symptoms,  and  sec- 
ond, after  the  disease  that  gives  them  nourishment. 

*  Notice  how  near  akin  Doctrinalism  is  to  Ritualism  in  this 
respect  of  immoral  tendency  : — "  It  may  seem  difficult  to  reconcile 
gross  deviations  from  morals  with  such  devotion  to  the  cause  of 
religion.  But  the  religion  taught  in  that  day  was  one  of  form  and 
elaborate  ceremony.  In  the  punctilious  attention  to  discipline,  the 
spirit  of  Christianity  was  permitted  to  evaporate.  The  mind,  occupied 
with  forms,  thinks  little  of  substance.  In  a  worship  that  is  ad- 
dressed too  exclusively  to  the  senses  it  is  often  the  case  that  moral- 
ity becomes  divorced  from  religion,  and  the  measure  of  righteous- 
ness is  determined  by  the  creed  rather  than  by  the  conduct."  Pres- 
coWs  Conquest  of  Mexico,  vol.  iii.  p.  362  (Ed.  of  1847). 


84  Fetich  in  Practice.  [Book  rv. 

He  has  a  third  search,  viz.,  after  the  occasion  that 
begets  the  disease.  First,  the  symptoms  ;  second, 
the  disease,  and  third,  the  occasion,  or  why  the  cold 
or  the  fever  throws  itself  upon  these  particular 
viscera  :  these  are  our  stages. 

One  symptom  is  irrationalness.  The  disease  is 
idolatry.  Now  God  threatens  idolatry  with  irration- 
alness, that  is  with  judicial  blindness  and  insanity 
of  life.  Still,  judgments  have  their  causes,  and  I 
am  free  to  approach  the  third  stage  of  the  inquiry, 
and  ask  why,  when  holiness  glides  out,  reason  fol- 
lows, or  why  in  a  most  refined  age  man  may  be 
most  astute  in  general,  and  most  senile  in  the  par- 
ticulars of  his  worship. 

Is  there  not  an  analogy  in  outward  things } 

If  I  spare  my  legs,  I  improve  my  arms.  If  I 
lose  my  eyes,  my  touch  gets  an  exaggerated  gift. 
If  I  am  smothered  out  in  every  other  sense,  my  ear 
becomes  ten  times  more  vigilant. 

Then  so  in  the  province  of  religion. 

If  I  throw  holiness  out,  I  must  exaggerate 
other  things,  or  I  will  have  nothing  plausibly  to 
worship. 

All  sinfulness  is  at  heart  an  idolism.  For  look 
at  the  stages : — First,  practical  unholiness,  which  is 
the  trait  of  everybody ; — second,  doctrinal  unholi- 
ness,  or  holiness  gliding  out  of  our  creed  ;  third,  an 
emphasis  upon  something  that  shall  supply  its  place ; 
and  fourth,  irrationalness ;  as  this  substitutionary 
trait  is  of  need  preposterous  and  brutal. 

I  need  the  idol. 


Chap.  IX.]  TJie  Rationale  of  Fetich.  85 

I  cannot  worship  nothing.  If  I  take  out  holi- 
ness, I  must  put  in  something  different.  If  the 
Greek  abandon  theism,  for  God's  sake  he  must  have 
some  divinity.  The  soul  yearns  somewhere.  The 
bronzes  of  the  Hindoo!  They  were  symbols  first. 
They  became  idols  afterward.  If  I  take  out  what 
is  osseous  I  must  fill  up  with  degenerated  car- 
tilage. 

Hence  the  extreme  irrationalncss  of  idols.  Sin 
was  the  proton-psetidos  of  the  degeneracy.  Admit- 
ting sin,  and  so  expelling  holiness  and  driving  that 
holiness,  therefore,  away  from  adoration,  and  wor- 
ship had  to  fill  itself  up  with  what  it  could ;  and, 
therefore,  cats  and  crocodiles  were  but  the  extremer 
refuges  after  a  forgotten  holiness. 

This  sheds  wonderful  light  on  our  theology. 
God,  not  one  thing, — then  He  must  be  something 
else  ;  not  holy — must  be  everything  beside  more 
plentifully.  This  is  what  begets  deformity.  Loveli- 
ness being  taken  out,  a  mere  Goddy-god  must  be 
put  in  ;  a  mere  shell-like  Deity.  There  must  be 
mere  arbitrariness,  the  crust  of  a  hearty  worship. 
And  while  we  obscure  the  wound  by  speaking  of 
Him  as  an  innate  idea,  yet  there  is  a  grim  look  on 
what  is  left,  like  the  glassy  eye  that  we  try  to  think 
of  as  the  very  effigies  of  Nature. 

God  bereft  of  holiness  is  bereft  of  rationalncss. 
That  He  be  bereft  of  rationalness  is  a  special  judg- 
ment upon  the  Church.  And  yet,  nevertheless, 
though  this  be  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  it  is  a 
special  judgment  by  force  of  reasons  in  the  case,  and 


S6  Fetich  in  Practice.  [Book  IV. 

by  stress  of  facts  that  are  resident  in  the  necessity  of 
nature.  This  will  help  us  mightily  in  the  discussion 
that  is  to  be  the  next  to  follow,  and  where  we  think 
this  irrational  trait  is  wonderfully  exhibited. 


BOOK  V. 

FETICH    IN    DOCTRINE. 

In  bringing  so  hard  a  charge,  and  approaching 
the  crisis  of  our  book,  we  had  better  proceed  cau- 
tiously, and  we  will  observe  this  usual  method : — 
First,  quote  Dr.  Hodge,  that  he  may  give  his  own 
doctrine  ;  second,  quote  Dr.  Hodge,  as  he  promptly 
contradicts  it !     This  is  a  strange  peculiarity.     It  is 
a  Providence  and  a  fact,  but  it  is  hardly  an  accident, 
for  it  is  too  punctual ;  or  a  mannerism,  for  a  man- 
nerism is   a  thing  of  style,  and  style  could  not  so 
affect  thought.     The  contradiction  is  often  more  ex- 
treme than    those   not   guilty   of  the   belief  would 
think  of  or  concede.      Nor  is    it  a   necessity ;  for 
though    truth  does  dispose  of  its  mistakes,  and  a 
great  system  raise   the   walls   of  its   impracticable- 
nesses  to  bar  out  inadvertences  in  itself,  yet  that  is 
more  gradual.     Here  the  suicide  is  at  once  ;  like  a 
bee-bird    close    upon    the   bee.       Hardly   has    Dr. 
Hodge  let  loose  one  of  these  ten  propositions  from 
his  pen,  than  he  remorselessly,  and  I  may  say  use- 
lessly, unsays  it.     Not  iii  eimdo,  or  in  the  necessary 
tread    of  his   polemic :  that  would   follow  indeed  ; 
for  there  is  enough  of  glorious  gospel  in   the  the- 
ology of  Dr.   Hodge   to   make  it  wonderful,  as  we 
see  lucidly  through  it,  that,   as  in  Maelzel's  Chess- 

(87) 


88  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [BookV. 

Player,  so  much  that  is  merely  human  can  lie  con- 
cealed. But  what  we  mean  is  fatalistic,  a  hap  like 
a  bird  devouring  her  eggs.  Not  chance,  for  we 
have  learned  to  expect  it,  like  the  rumble  of  the 
earth  followed  by  the  tidal  from  the  sea.  This, 
therefore,  will  be  our  second  stage, — to  wait  for  the 
tide  that  shall  sweep  each  first  proposition. 

Our  third  shall  be  to  consider  Dr.  Hodge's  texts  ; 
our  fourth,  to  offer  our  own  ;  our  fifth,  to  consider 
the  argument  from  reason  ;  and  our  sixth,  to  finish 
the  discussion  in  each  case  by  tracing  the  proposi- 
tion in  hand  to  the  soul's  idolatry. 

Let  us,  now,  take  the  ten  up  in  the  order  in 
which  they  were  propounded. 

CHAPTER  I. 

A    GOD    ALL    FOR   HIMSELF. 

§  I.  Dr.  Hodge's  Staiemejit  of  the  Doctrine. 

Dr.  Hodge  says(Theol.,  vol.  i.  p.  436), — ''If  we 
make  the  creature,  and  not  God,  the  end  of  all 
things,  our  theology  and  religion  will  be  in  like  man- 
ner perverted."  He  says  (i.  p.  535),— ''all  things 
are  said  to  be  not  only  of  God  and  through  Him, 
but  for  Him."  He  says  (p.  566), — "  It  follows  from 
the  nature  of  an  infinite  Being  that  the  ground  (i.  e., 
both  the  motive  and  the  end)  of  the  creation  must 
be  in  Himself.  As  all  things  are  from  Him  and 
through  Him,  so  also  they  are  for  Him."  He  says 
in  the  Commentary  to  the  Romans  (iii.  25,  p.  129), 
— "  God  is  the  ultimate  end  of  all  His  own  acts  :  " 


Chap.  I.]  ^    God  all  for  Himself.  89 

(Theol.,  vol.  ii.  p.  321),  *' As  He  is  the  Alpha,  so  also 
is  He  the  Omega ;  the  beginning  and  the  end  :  "  (ii.  p. 
339),  ''This  appears  first  from  the  clear  revelation 
which  the  Scriptures  make  of  God, as  infinitely  ex- 
alted above  all  His  creatures,  and  as  the  final  end 
as  well  as  the  source  of  all  things." 

^  2.  Dr.  Hodge's  Contradiction  of  his  oiun  Doctrine. 

Intertwined  with  these  sentences  and  occurring 
very  much  oftener  than  they  do,  are  others  which 
teach  the  doctrine  which  is  the  fifth  to  be  considered. 
By  that,  God  is  represented  as  making  it  His  chief 
end  to  show  His  Glory.  We  wander  from  one  to 
the  other  without  being  taught  to  consider  any  dif- 
ference between  God's  self  being  His  chief  end  and 
the  display  of  Himself  to  the  eye  of  the  beholder. 

The  haziness  that  comes  over  our  sight  is  not  in 
the  least  relieved. 

God's  chief  end  is  of  necessity  positive.  It  is 
clean-shaved.  We  have  a  right  to  think  of  it  as 
unique.  To  tell  us,  first,  that  it  is  Himself,  and, 
second,  that  it  is  His  own  display,  is  certainly  to 
divide  things  at  once  ;  to  make  things  definite  by 
two  ideas  ;  and  to  make  those  ideas  specially  un- 
meet by  choosing  one  to  be  the  Great  God  Himself, 
and  the  other  the  temporal  end  of  showing  Him 
to  the  creature. 

If  I  say, — A  man  makes  everything  for  himself, 
it  would  strangely  mix  things  to  add, — He  makes 
everything  to  show  himself  The  objects  are  not 
equipollent.     I  may  explain  by  saying, — That  man 


go  Fetich  in  Doctrine..  [BookV. 

loves  showing  himself  more  than  anything  in  the 
world  beside.  But  still,  this  latter  object  is  a  means. 
The  man's  great  end  is  himself.  His  delight  is  in 
his  own  display.  His  great  object,  therefore,  is  not 
the  exhibition,  but  himself,  the  exhibition  being  but 
the  means  whereby  he  furthers  the  great  end  of  his 
being. 

But  there  is  a  worse  divaricating.  Hardly  is 
either  doctrine  broached  before  Dr.  Hodge  is  eager 
to  defend  it.  Why }  If  there  be  a  highest  motive 
can  I  vindicate  it  by  a  higher  ?  Standing  forth  as 
the  last  end  must  it  not  be  topmost  and  in  itself? 
And  yet  Dr.  Hodge  goes  on  to  topple  it  and  to  seize 
its  place  by  showing  that  it  is  right  that  it  should 
be  the  chief  end  of  God. 

If  God's  chief  end  is  absolutely  Himself,  that  is 
the  term  of  all  possible  motive  that  we  can  suggest. 
To  palter  afterward  is  to  recant.  To  say  that  it  is 
His  own  display  is  mixing  matters  enough  :  but  to 
grow  timid  and  to  bring  in  the  motive  that  it  is 
RIGHT  (i.  p.  567  and  ii.  p.  339),  is  to  confess  judg- 
ment in  the  very  plea,  because  it  is  to  bring  in  a 
higher  object  than  self,  and  to  make  rightness  ipso 
facto  the  regent  over  all. 

We  are  to  return  to  this  subject  under  the  fifth 
head,  and,  therefore,  we  will  not  now  quote  at 
length  lest  we  recapitulate  too  much,  but  one  doc- 
trine, in  our  belief,  being  all  that  is  necessary  to 
take  the  place  of  both  those  that  are  propounded 
by  Dr.  Hodge. 


Chap.  I.]  A   God  all  fo?'  Himself.  91 

§  3.   Texts  to  Sustain  the  Error. 

The  doctrine  that  God  has  made  all  things  for 
Himself  seems  to  be  announced  by  Solomon,  ip- 
sissiviis  verbis,  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs  (xvi.  4), 
**  The  Lord  hath  made  all  things  for  Himself."  This 
doubtless  is  the  text  from  which  just  this  form  of 
statement  has  been  taken.  But  then  not  only  are  we 
too  prone  to  make  superlatives  in  Holy  Writ  of  what 
is  far  more  moderately  stated,  and  to  speak  of  the 
chief  end  and  of  the  highest  motive  when  only  one 
end  of  God  is  legitimately  to  be  inferred  ;  but  Rosen- 
miiller  shows  that  this  whole  expression  is  entirely 
ambiguous.  The  pronoun  may  be  either  Himself  or 
itself.  If  it  be  ''Himself,''  it  refers  to  God  ;  but  if 
it  be  ''itself,"  it  refers  to  "everything.''  "The  Lord 
hath  made  everything  for  itself."  Maurer  believes 
that  it  refers  to  " eveiy tiling''  But  Ewald  comes  in 
still  further  to  divert  the  sense.  He  shows  that 
there  is  an  article  in  what  has  been  supposed  to  be 
a  compound  preposition.  He  shows  that  that  article 
draws  back  a  substantive  which  otherwise  would  be 
used  as  of  the  compound  preposition.  He  shows 
that  that  substantive  is  eminently  in  place.  Solo- 
mon had  been  using  it.  The  Proverbs  just  before 
contained  it.  It  is  from  the  verb  to  answer.  It 
means  a  decree,  or  that  fearful  answer  that  a  man 
makes  to  some  life  question  or  request.  "A  man 
has  joy  by  the  decree  of  his  tongue,"  says  the  last 
chapter  (xv.  23).  "  The  preparations  of  the  heart 
in  man,  and  the  answer  (or  decree)  of  the  tongue 


92  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [BookV. 

is  from  Jehovah "  (xvi.  i).  This  alters  the  proof- 
text  entirely.  ''Jehovah  has  made  everything  for 
His  decree."  That  is,  before  time  He  gave  an  an- 
szvcr  to  the  whole  question  of  His  eternal  Provi- 
dence. That  answer  is  His  decree.  That  decree 
is  complete  for  His  whole  eternity.  *'  I  know  that 
whatever  God  doeth  is  for  the  universe"  (Ec.  iii.  14), 
says  this  same  Solomon  :  by  which  I  do  not  under- 
stand, as  Dr.  Hodge  might,  that  this  is  His  chief  end 
because  it  is  so  discoursed  of,  but  that  it  is  an  end. 
God  doeth  everything  for  the  universe  :  which  is 
exactly  tantamount  to  saying, — "■  [He]  hath  made 
everything  for  His  decree  :"  the  meaning  being  that 
He  had  a  whole  plan  at  the  very  beginning,  and  that 
''even  the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil"  were  woven 
as  a  vital  part  of  it.-''" 

So  Paul's  text  (Rom.  xi.  36), — "  For  of  Him  and 
through  Him  and  to  Him  are  all  things,"  which  has 
been  perpetually  quoted.  This  wilts  at  the  first 
touch.  "  Of  Him  and  tJiroiLgh  Him,"  of  course,  are 
quite  impertinent.  "  To  Him,"  must  bear  the  ex- 
clusive stress.  "  To  Him  "  is  all  to  be  interpreted  by 
the  uses  of  the  preposition  dq.  Now  look  at  that 
word  ziq.  "  They  were  all  baptized  into  Moses,"  i.  e.,  in 
reference  to  Moses  (i  Cor.  x.  2).  Such  is  the  com- 
monest of  the  tropical  significations.  How  idle  to 
build  heavily  upon  such  a  particle  !  "  Of  Him  and 
through  Him  and  to  Him  are  all  things."  That  is, 
they  are  "  of  Him  and  through  Him  "  as  Creator, 
and  "  to  Him  "  as  Guide  and  Judge.     It  is  cruel  to 

*  See  the  Author's  Commentary  on  Proverbs,  in  loco. 


CiiAP.  I.]  A   God  all  for  Himself.  93 

tempt  men  upon  so  thin  a  plank,  and  then  leave  the 
intellectual  and  the  wise  to  suppose  that  such  are 
the  Scriptures  that  we  are  to  depend  upon  for  the 
most  serious  gospel. 

For  look  further.  Dr.  Hodge  takes  an  expres- 
sion of  Christ, ''  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega  "  (Rev.  i.  8). 
He  lays  great  stress  upon  it.  Think  what  it  is  to 
prove  ! — So  thorough  a  thought  as  God's  uttermost 
end !  And  yet  look  at  the  language.  He  is  the 
Omega  in  a  thousand  ways.  The  analogy  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  all  the  broader  principles  of  truth  and 
right,  seem  to  be  as  nothing  to  Dr.  Hodge  before 
one  of  these  flying  texts;  and  when  we  come  to 
examine  it,  John  himself  takes  it  quite  out  of  Dr. 
Hodge's  hands.  It  might  mean  one  thing.  It 
might  mean  another.  It  might  mean  anything  an- 
swered to  by  the  emblematic  imagery  of  what- is 
final  or  at  the  end.  And,  therefore.  Dr.  Hodge  as- 
sinncs  that  it  means  end  in  the  sense  of  object,  and 
that  it  means,  too,  the  chief  est  end  or  that  which  is 
absolutely  highest  in  the  conception  of  the  Most 
High  ;  and  yet  we  bend  and  listen,  and  the  Apostle 
has  already  begun  to  explain  his  own  sense,  and 
Dr.  Hodge  is  already  away  with  his  assumed  and 
divergent  signification. 

We  do  appeal  most  earnestly  here.  Ought  not 
high  theology  to  set  the  pattern  of  grave  and  most 
careful  vindications  }  -  And  yet  here  is  an  instance 
where  John  has  gone  on  to  interpret : — "  I  am 
Alpha  and  Omega,  which  is  and  which  was  and 
WHICH  IS  TO  COME  ;"  that  is,  whose  being  is  eternal  ; 


94  Fetich  iji  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

while  a  theologian  has  already  caught  it  up  ;  turned 
it  in  another  sense  ;  and  taught  from  it  God's  pur- 
posed end,  and  that  the  chiefest  one,  in  the  work  of 
His  creation. 

§  4.   Texts  to  Refute  the  Error. 

Elihu  says, — ''If  He  set  His  heart  upon  Him- 
self, if  He  gather  upon  Himself  His  spirit  and  His 
breath,  all  flesh  would  perish  together,  and  man 
would  return  to  the  dust"  (Job  xxxiv.  14,  15).  It  is 
true  this  is  not  the  usual  translation  ;  but  we  will 
risk  it  ;  the  Margin,  even,  suggests  it ;  the  He- 
brew ordains  it  ;  the  sense  obviously  demands  it. 
It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  whole  Bible.  God  is  every- 
where sufficient  in  Himself.  Is  it  any  gain  to  Him 
if  we  are  righteous  }  (Job  xxii.  3.)  "■  I  know,"  says 
Solomon, "  that  all  that  God  doeth  is  for  the  universe  " 
(Ec.  iii.  14).  And  then  he  says,  more  flatly, — "  God 
doeth  (or  acteth  :  ^^  it'''  is  in  italics)  that  men  may 
fear  before  Him."  To  this  belong  all  those  texts 
where  character  is  spoken  of. 

"Justice  and  judgment  are  the  habitation  of  [His] 
throne"  (Ps.  Ixxxix.  14).  **The  Lord  is  righteous  in 
all  His  ways,  and  holy  in  all  His  works  "  (Ps.  cxlv. 
17).  That  is, — not  simply  that  His  throne  is  just, 
but  that  it  lives  in  justice  ;  that  is  its  object  :  not 
simply  that  His  ways  are  holy,  but  that  He  is  holy 
in  ha.ving  any  ways  at  all.  His  whole  creative  im- 
pulse is  holiness.  As  Jeremiah  expresses  it, — ''  The 
Lord  God  is  the  truth  "  (x.  10,  see  Hebreiv).  Hence 
Elihu  : — "  If  He  set  His  heart  on  Himself: "  that  is, 


Chap.  I.]  A  God  all  for  Himself. 


95 


if  He  did  the  very  thing  that  Dr.  Hodge  says  He 
always  does  ;  if  He  had  no  care  but  for  Himself;  if 
He  took  to  Himself  His  creative  enterprises,  Elihu 
tells  us,  He  would  drop  motiveless  :  "  All  flesh  would 
perish  together,  and  man  would  return  to  the  dust " 
(Job  xxxiv.  14,  15). 

We  defer  further  quotations  till  chapter  fifth. 
*'  God  is  love  ;  and  he  that  dwelleth  in  love  dwelleth 
in  God,  and  God  in  him  "  (i  Jo.  iv.  16)  ;  and  though 
this  is  not  inconsistent  with  His  justice,  it  is  incon- 
sistent with  Dr.  Hodge.  He  cannot  be  so  loving  as 
to  choose  that  as  the  very  expression  of  His  nature, 
and  yet  be  so  philosophically  the  reverse  as  to  do 
everything  for  a  selfish  end. 

§  5.  Argiiinent  from  Reason. 

The  favorite  argument  that  God  does  everything 
for  Himself  is,  that  He  is  an  infinite  Being,  and, 
therefore,  that  there  can  be  no  higher  to  whom  He 
can  devote  His  agency.  This  reasoning  has  warped 
to  it  other  propositions  of  the  ten.  It  is  built  upon 
the  idea  that  being  must  be  the  object  of  what  He 
does,  and  that  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  quality 
to  ride  paramount  over  any  considerations  of  its 
possessor.  Hence  the  doctrine  that  follows, — that 
the  will  of  God  is  the  ground  of  moral  obligation. 
This  denies  quality  an  independent  worth.  And 
when  there  follows  the  tenet,  that  the  idea  of  God  is 
innate,  we  might  expect  the  form  in  which  that  in- 
nate idea  is  stated  (Theol.,  vol.  i.  p.  199),  viz.,  that 
it   is   a   sense    of  responsibility.      Put    those    three 


96  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [BookV. 

things  together, — first,  that  God  is  the  Great  End  ; 
second,  that  He  makes  right,  which,  of  course, 
clears  away  the  danger  that  that  quaUty  would  sue 
to  Him  as  His  chiefest  object;  and  third,  that  the 
idea  of  Him  is  innate,  and  consists  in  a  sense  of  His 
authority, — and,  of  course,  we  have  a  trio  of  thoughts 
highly  calculated  to  lift  Him  up  to  an  arbitrary 
place,  and  to  make  it  plausible  that  He  should  be 
the  chief  end  of  all  His  doings. 

But  if  He  is  holy,  and  that  holiness  is  something 
virtuous  in  itself;  if  two  and  two  are  four,  not  by 
the  will  of  God,  but  by  necessity  in  the  fact  affirmed  ; 
if  a  cloud  is  beautiful,  not  by  the  Creator's  will,  but 
of  necessity  when  once  it  has  been  made,  then  we 
are  prepared  to  feel  how  paramount  holiness  is.  If 
God  sovereignly  loves  it ;  if  it  is  supreme  ;  if  He 
loves  it  beyond  any  other  thought,  nay,  bows  to  it ; 
if  it  be  absolutely  imperative  over  all  His  ways  ;  then 
who  will  say  that  He  cares  for  a  creation  beside  that 
great  object,  viz.,  His  love,  or  that  He  dares  to 
have  one  except  in  submission  to  His  character. 

Our  great  doctrine,  therefore,  is,  that  holiness 
is  God's  highest  end.  We  argue  for  it,  first,  because 
it  is  His  delight ;  second,  because  it  is  His  rule ; 
third,  because  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  God  as 
having  any  higher  ;  and  if  now  any  one  argues, — 
That  is  the  very  point ;  God  hath  nothing  higher ; 
He  loves  nothing  better  than  holiness  itself;  and 
this  is  where  your  point  is  seen  to  be  identical  with 
that  of  Dr.  Hodge  ;  God  loves  holiness,  and  will  do 
anything  in  the  world  to  gratify  it  ;   He  loves  it  be- 


Chap.  I.]  A    God  all  for  Himself.  97 

yond  any  other  claim  ;  and,  therefore,  holiness  as 
His  chief  end  and  Himself  as  His  chief  end  are  but 
different  aspects  of  the  same  reality, — wo  reply  just 
there  with  our  most  careful  thought,  and  with  such 
fixed  distinctions  as  must  serve  us  through  all  this 
reasoning. 

God  loves  holiness  supremely ;  then  is  God  the 
end,  or  holiness  the  end  .^  (i)  God  loves  holiness 
supremely;  then,  in  indulging  holiness,  does  He  not 
gratify  God  }  Of  all  other  living  critics  Dr.  Hodge 
will  not  make  holiness  aim  at  gratification.  God's 
gratification  is  one  thing.  God's  great  aim  is  an- 
other. The  very  purity  of  holiness  /;/  foro  hinnano 
is  its  preciousness  for  itself.  God  cannot  be  chief 
end  of  His  works  simply  because  He  delights  in 
being  holy ;  for  then  personal  delight  would  be  His 
motive,  and  would  be  superior  to  holiness.  There- 
fore, a  little  deeper  (2) ; — God  loves  holiness  su- 
premely, and,  therefore,  holiness  in  zuio  aspcctu  is 
His  highest  end.  But  God  loves  holiness  in  Him- 
self, because  He  loves  holiness  most  of  all  when  it 
is  infinite;  and  it  is  found  in  an  infinite  condition 
only  in  Himself.  Moreover,  He  is  its  Prince  and 
norm.  There  is  no  holiness  except  in  His  creation  ; 
and  whatever  we  shall  presently  decide  as  to  the 
ground  of  the  moral  trait,  certainly  the  embodiment 
of  holiness  is  only  in  the  Most  High. 

This  evidently  is  at  the  head  of  true  thinking  in 
the  case  ;  and  if  we  start  legitimately  here  we  shall 
be  led  the  readier  through  all  the  wanderings  of  the 
discussion. 
5 


98  FcticJi  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

"God  only  wisel"  That  is,  indeed,  undoubted. 
But,  rigidly,  what  does  He  love?  Does  He  love 
God,  or  love  wisdom  ?  Take  wisdom  in  Solomon's 
sense,  and  what  does  God  love  ?  Does  He  love 
self?  or  does  He  love  this  Eternal  Wisdom?  Or, 
to  be  fairer  in  the  question,  take  out  of  Himself 
His  hoUness,  and  what  does  He  love  most  ?  ITis 
happiness  and  all  that  may  be  left  ?  or  the  holiness 
that  has  been  separated  away  ? 

We  cannot,  therefore,  honor  God,  and  we  can- 
not adore  holiness,  which  in  Him  is  infinitely  great, 
without  we  set  it  up  as  unspeakable  in  itself,  and  as 
gloriously  beyond  anything  else  that  could  be  ter- 
minal with  the  Most  High. 

Because,  witness  our  appeals.  Suppose  it  were 
altercated,  and  pushed  angrily  to  the  last,  that  God 
was  His  chief  end  ;  how  could  we  settle  it  ?  Could 
we  argue  through  six  pages  without  one  form  of 
appeal  ?  How  strange  it  would  seem  if  six  pages 
were  written  and  no  man  stumbled  upon  the  query, 
which  form  of  end  was  rigJit.  Now,  what  does  that 
mean  ?  Certainly  that  right  rules  the  day ;  that  God 
could  no  more  appeal  against  it  than  against  the 
beauty  of  a  flower ;  that  He  considers  it  in  all  He 
does  ;  that  He  values  it  of  all  He  is  ;  that  He  sets 
it  above  all  His  aims;  and  that  one  jot  or  tittle  of 
its  demand  shall  not  be  lost,  but  all  its  last  end  ful- 
filled. 

\  6.    The  Opposite^  Fetichism. 

When    a     Hindoo    lets     go   the     divine,    he     is 


Chap.  L]  A    God  all  for  Himself.  99 

obliged  to  accentuate  the  other  part  of  his  idol. 
He  began,  the  old  writings  tell  us,  with  a  symboUed 
Deity.  He  gathered  up  a  piece  of  clay  or  a  piece  of 
bark,  and  distinctly  beginning  with  the  idea  that  it 
was  what  it  was,  he  simply  conceived  it  as  instinct 
with  the  Deity.  Soon,  however,  abandoning  the  di- 
viner traits,  he  was  obliged  to  accentuate  the  clay 
and  the  wood.  This  seems  to  be  the  origin  of  all 
idolatry.  Not  liking  to  retain  God  in  our  knowledge, 
we  feel  foolish  without  something,  and  the  brute 
grows  into  the  Deity.  So  in  these  doctrines.  The 
orthodox,  being  of  the  same  blood  as  others,  priding 
themselves  against  molten  shapes,  and  being  en- 
tirely cut  off  historically  from  a  tolerance  of  outward 
rite,  nestle  in  doctrine.  Doctrine  psychically  cannot 
save  us.  Being  our  pride,  and  being  the  thing  we 
keep  attending  to  assiduously  above  other  men, 
what  is  to  hinder  it  that  it  be  our  Deity  ">  Letting 
holiness  escape,  as  it  must  do  when  it  decays,  and 
letting  it  go  stealthily,  as  it  has  done  out  of  the 
Deities  of  an  older  worship,  why  should  not  doc- 
trine appear,  just  as  we  have  shown  it  does,  bereft 
of  hoUness,  and  why,  when  the  diamonds  have 
been  taken  out,  should  they  not  be  replaced  by 
paste  ;  that  is,  why  should  we  not  accentuate  what 
is  left  by  bringing  into  it  other  ends,  and  by  making 
God  Himself  more  God  through  His  sovereignty 
itself,  and  by  ghostly  forms  of  less  reasonable 
devotion  'i 

Remembering  that  God  is  what  we  make  Him — 
that  is,  that  God  to  us  is  what  we  conceive   Him  to 


TOO  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

be,  if  we  make  the  wrong  God  He  is  not  worthy  of 
respect,  and  may  be  treated  as  a  heathen  Deity. 
If  Dr.  Hodge  takes  hoUness  out  of  God,  he  has 
sacrificed  Him  in  that  act.  Afterward  He  is  an 
idol.  And  if  we  were  shrewd  enough  to  say, — 
Now  he  will  accentuate  the  rest :  denying  holi- 
ness to  be  God's  highest  end,  and  denying  mor- 
als to  have  a  foundation  in  themselves,  and  de- 
nying faith  to  have  a  moral  essence,  and  denying 
helplessness  to  have  its  essence  in  the  will,  he  will 
go  on  and  crust  heavier  the  attributes  that  are  left ; 
we  would  but  be  calculating  as  from  the  past  ;  we 
would  but  be  standing  in  our  tower,  and  hearing  of 
the  weather  as  from  other  posts  ;  we  might  pre- 
dict,— We  shall  have  cartilage  for  the  ancient  bone  ; 
we  shall  have  sovereignty  for  God's  appetite  for  the 
right  ;  Self  instead  of  Eternal  Excellency  ;  Will  in- 
stead of  Holiness ;  and  when  we  writhe  under  the 
painting  of  the  Pit,  we  shall  have  God  choosing  it 
for  personal  display,  and  not  promising  to  effect  by 
it  the  most  glorious  creation. 

Let  us  not  anticipate,  however. 

CHAPTER   II. 

THE   WILL    OF    GOD    THE    GROUND    OF    MORAL    OBLIGATION. 

^   I.  Dr.  Hodge's  State7nent  of  the  Doctriiie. 

On  page  405  of  the  first  volume  of  his  Theology 
Dr.  Hodge  introduces  the  subject,  *'  The  will  of 
God  as  the  Ground  of  Moral  Obligation!'  He  is 
very   precise    in    settling    its    boundaries : — ''  The 


Chap.  II.]      GocVs  Will  the  Ground  of  Morals.        lOl 

question  on  this  subject  is,  whether  things  are  right 
or  wrong  simply  because  God  commands  or  forbids 
them  }  Or,  does  He  command  or  forbid  them  be- 
cause they  are  right  or  wrong  for  some  other  reason 
than  His  will.^"  He  then  denies  that  they  are 
right  because  they  tend  to  happiness,  and  also  re- 
jects the  doctrine  that  they  are  right  because  they 
promote  our  own  happiness.  "  Others,  again,"  he 
says,  "place  the  ground  of  moral  obligation  in  the 
fitness  of  things.  There  is,  they  affirm,  an  eternal 
and  necessary  difference  between  right  and  wrong, 
to  which  God,  it  is  said,  is  as  much  bound  to  be 
conformed  as  His  rational  creatures."  He  then  goes 
on  to  say, — "The  common  doctrine  of  Christians 
on  this  subject  is,  that  the  will  of  God  is  the  ulti- 
mate ground  of  moral  obligation  to  all  rational 
creatures.  No  higher  reason  can  be  assigned  why 
anything  is  right  than  that  God  commands  it." 
Then  further, — "  In  all  cases,  so  far  as  we  are  con- 
cerned, it  is  His  will  that  binds  us,  and  constitutes 
the  difference  between  right  and  wrong."  Many 
fpages  farther  on  (vol.  ii.  p.  127),  that  we  may  be  fair 
to  Dr.  Hodge,  and  show  his  abiding  bent,  we  have 
this  language, — "Whatever  He  commands  is  good, 
and  whatever  He  forbids  is  evil."  (Right,  no  doubt ; 
and  not  interfering  with  its  being  what  it  is  solely 
in  the  nature  of  things.)  "The  question  is  de- 
termined by  authority."  (True,  unquestionably; 
and  one  can  have  nothing  to  say  against  it.)  But 
again  : — "  We  cannot  answer  it  from  the  nature  of 
things:'  That  is, — If  I  take  a  child  and  torture  him 


102  F die  J  I  in  Doctrine. 


[Book  V. 


with  knives,  that  it  is  wrong  must  be  "determined 
by  authority."  I  cannot  know,  "from  the  nature  of 
things."  This  is  more  frightful  in  the  third  vokmie. 
On  page  260  we  read, — "The  shghtest  analysis  of 
our  feelings  is  sufficient  to  show  that  moral  obliga- 
tion is  the  obligation  to  conform  our  character  and 
conduct  to  the  will  of  an  infinitely  perfect  Being, 
who  has  the  authority  to  make  His  will  imperative, 
and  who  has  the  power  and  the  right  to  punish  dis- 
obedience. The  sense  of  guilt  especially  resolves 
itself  into  a  consciousness  of  being  amenable  to  a 
moral  governor.  The  moral  law,  therefore,  is  in  its 
nature  the  revelation  of  the  will  of  God  so  far  as 
that  will  concerns  the  conduct  of  His  creatures.  It 
has  no  other  authority,  and  no  other  sanction,  than 
that  which  it  derives  from  Him.  The  same  is  true 
with  regard  to  the  laws  of  men.  They  have  no 
power  or  authority  unless  they  have  a  moral  foun- 
dation." (Most  true!  but  now  notice  what  that  is.) 
"And  if  they  have  a  moral  basis,  so  that  they  bind 
the  conscience,  that  basis  must  be  the  divine  will. 
The  authority  of  civil  rulers,  the  rights  of  property,^ 
of  marriage,  and  all  other  civil  rights  do  not  rest  on 
abstractions,  nor  on  general  principles  of  expediency. 
They  migJit  be  disregarded  witJioiit  guilt  (.'),  were 
they  not  sustained  by  the  authority  of  God.  All  moral 
obligation,  therefore,  resolves  itself  into  the  obliga- 
tion of  conformity  to  the  will  of  God." 

We  have  come  to  something  vital,  certainly. 

That  is,  I  might  take  a  child  and  seat  him  on  a 
red-hot  stove,  "and   all   [his]  civil  rights  might  be 


CiiAr.  II.]       God's  Will  the  Ground  of  Morals.       1 03 

disregarded  without  guilt,  were  they  not   sustained 
by  the  authority  of  God. ""'•'■ 

The  third  doctrine  comes  in  here  to  help  out 
Dr.  Hodge,  viz.,  that  the  Idea  of  God  is  Innate ;  or 
the  horror  of  his  scheme  would  stand  out  in  all  its 
ghastliness.  Suppose  I  did  not  know  God  !  But  I 
must  know  Him  if  the  idea  is  innate.  See  how  a 
system  props  itself  together  !  Still,  suppose  I  know 
Him  dimly.  Suppose  I  am  the  worst  man  that 
ever  lived,  but  have  the  dimmest  notion  of  the  Most 
High,  then  all  my  acts  are  innocent  as  the  slumbers 
of  a  child,  except  so  far  as  they  impinge  upon  the 
authority  of  God  ;  and  my  guilt  thereanent,  accord- 
ing to  principles  that  Dr.  Hodge  has  confessed 
(see  vol.  i.  pp.  195,  196),  must  be  sharply  graded  by 

*  The  neglect  of  old  authorities  on  this  point  seems  one  of  the 
wonders  of  Dr.  Hodge's  position.  Listen  to  Bishop  Butler  : — "  How- 
ever, I  am  far  from  intending  to  deny,  that  the  will  of  God  is  deter- 
mined by  what  is  fit,  by  the  right  and  reason  of  the  case  ;  though 
one  chooses  to  decline  matters  of  such  abstract  speculation,  and  to 
speak  with  caution  when  one  does  speak  of  them.  But  if  it  be  in- 
telligible to  say,  that  it  is  fit  and  reasonable  for  every  one  to  considt 
his  own  happiness,  \}L\tvi  fitness  of  action,  or  the  right  and  reason  of 
the  case,  is  an  intelligible  manner  of  speaking.  And  it  seems  as  in- 
conceivable, to  suppose  God  to  approve  one  course  of  action,  or 
one  end,  preferably  to  another,  which  yet  His  acting  at  all  from  de- 
sign implies  that  He  does,  without  supposing  somewhat  prior  in 
that  end,  to  be  the  ground  of  the  preference ;  as  to  suppose  him  to 
discern  an  abstract  proposition  to  be  true,  without  supposing  some- 
what prior  to  it  to  be  the  ground  of  the  discernment.  It  doth  not, 
therefore,  appear,  that  moral  right  is  any  more  relative  to  perception 
than  abstract  truth  is,  or  that  it  is  any  more  improper  to  speak  of  the 
fitness  and  rightness  of  actions  and  ends,  as  founded  in  the  nature 
of  things,  than  t<?  speak  of  abstract  truth  as  thus  founded."— Z>'«//^r'j 
Analogy  (Harper's  Ed.),  page  173. 


I04  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  v. 

my  knowledge  of  the  Almighty.  All  guilt  must 
depend  upon  God's  being  an  innate  idea ;  for  if  He 
were  an  acquired  idea,  the  man  not  acquiring  Him 
could  not  sin.  And  if  He  be  an  innate  idea,  the 
degree  of  its  inborn-ness  must  regulate  my  guilt ; 
and  I  may  act  a  very  incarnate  fiend,  and  yet  be  as 
innocent  as  Gabriel,  but  for  the  government  of 
Heaven. 

Now  think  of  this.  All  virtue  in  myself;  all 
thought  of  wrong  as  wrong,  apart  from  the  will  of 
the  Almighty  ;  all  pity  to  the  poor  till  I  have 
thought  of  it  as  acceptable  on  high  ;  all  cruelty  to 
that  child,  or  shudder  at  his  shrieks  as  soul-withering 
and  sin-manifesting  in  their  very  selves  ;  all  right 
quality  of  act,  outside  of  obedience  to  a  King,  is 
made  utterly  impossible.  And  the  whole  is  followed 
by  that  remorseless  speech, — that  it  is  *'  tJie  com- 
mon doctrine  of  CJiristians  on  [t/ie]  siibjecf  '•'•■  (vol. 
i.  p.  406). 

^   2.   Dr.  Hodge's  Conti'adictions. 
And  yet,  with  more  than  common  speediness, 

*  And  yet  the  opposite  was  found  plausible  enough  to  win  en- 
trance from  Dr.  Hodge  into  the  "  Repertory  "  a  third  of  a  century 
ago.  It  is  in  one  of  the  untraced  articles  : — "  When  the  author,  in 
his  first  chapter,  makes  'the  will  of  God'  the  only  foundation  of 
moral  obligation,  of  course  we  understand  him  to  mean  that  the 
distinction  between  moral  good  and  evil  is  not  arbitrary,  or  might 
have  been  the  very  reverse  of  what  it  now  is,  if  God  had  so  willed  it, 
but  as  maintaining  that  the  will  of  God,  as  His  nature,  is  immutably 
inclined  to  good.  As  there  is  an  extreme  opinion  on  this  subject  of 
the  will  of  God  being  the  ultimate  standard  of  moral  rectitude,  it 
would  have  been  well  to  guard  against  this  by  an  explanatory 
clause."  Bib.  Repeytoy,  Rev.  of  JunJdn  on  Jiistif :  Apr.  1840,  p.  271. 


Chap.  II.]      God's  Will  tJic  Ground  of  JMorals.       105 

Dr.  Hodge  specially  contradicts.  Let  us  look  at 
this  with  the  utmost  effort  at  distinctness. 

Recollect  (vol.  i.  p.  406),  he  has  quoted  our 
doctrine,  and  most  explicitly  refused  it : — "  Others, 
again,  place  the  ground  of  moral  obligation  in  the 
fitness  of  things,  ••'•■  which  they  exalt  above  God. 
There  is,  they  affirm,  an  eternal  and  necessary  dif- 
ference between  right  and  wrong,  to  which  God,  it 
is  said,  is  as  much  bound  "  (we  would  say, — more 
bound)  *'to  be  conformed  as  are  His  rational  crea- 
tures." 

Here,  then,  is  the  proof  that  the  per  contra  was 
not  out  of  the  mind  of  Dr.  Hodge,  but  was  weighed 
in  his  reckoning,  and  was  distinctly  meant  to  be 
denied. 

And  yet  mark  his  progress.  Hardly  has  he 
uttered  his  doctrine  (p.  406)  as  to  "the  ultimate 
ground  of  obligation  ;  "  hardly  has  he  enforced  it : — 
"  No  higher  reason  can  be  assigned  why  anything  is 
right  than  that  God  commands  it ; "  hardly  has  he 
diverted  it  a  little,  because  '' gro2ind''  is  one  thing 
and  ''rziW  is  a  very  different  thing,  and  he  says, — 
''This  means  (i)  that  the  divine  will  is  the  only 
;7//^,"  etc.  ;  hardly  has  he  set  his  doctrine  in 
broad  and  very  emphatic  array  before  us,  before  he 
entirely  and  most  astonishingly  denies  it: — "/>> 
the  word  '  zvill '  is  not  meant  any  arbitrary  purpose, 

*  A  very  imperfect  expression.  We  would  rather  say,  "  in  itself'^ 
Moral  is  moral  in  itself  considered  ;  or  holiness  finds  its  obligation 
in  its  intrinsic  nature.  "  The  fitness  of  things  "  is  a  poor  periphras- 
tic definition  ;  still,  as  no  definition  is  ever  precise,  we  accept  it  for 
what  it  obviously  intends. 

5* 


I06  FeticJi  in  Doctriiie. 


[Book  V. 


so  that  it  were  conceivable  that  God  should  will 
right  to  be  wrong,  or  wrong  right!' 

"  Right  to  be  wrong,  or  wrong,  right ! "  Think  of 
that !  What  would  a  man  like  Mill  or  Hamilton  do 
with  a  section  like  this  ninth  ?  "•  The  ultimate 
ground  of  moral  obligation  is  the  will  of  God."  We 
are  not  to  ''place  the  ground  of  moral  obligation  in 
the  fitness  of  things,"  or  "  affirm  an  eternal  and 
necessary  difference  between  right  and  wrong." 
"  No  higher  reason  can  be  assigned  why  anything  is 
right  than  that  God  commands  it."  And  yet  the  mo- 
ment He  is  lifted  to  the  throne  Dr.  Hodge  shrinks 
quite  away.  There  is  a  right  and  there  is  a  wrong  that 
He  will  never  meddle  with.  What  right  t  and  what 
wrong  1  If  the  ground  of  moral  obligation  is  the 
will  of  God,  and  but  for  His  will  in  law  we  might 
utterly  disregard  it,  why  strip  Him  of  His  eternal 
holiness,  and  sink  all  grand  distinctions,  and  make 
them  mere  choices  of  His  will,  and  then  mock  Him 
in  the  end  by  the  ghost  of  His  dishonored  excellen- 
cies } 

And  look  further  still  (p.  406)  : — "  The  ground 
of  moral  obligation  is  the  will  of  God.  No  higher 
reason  can  be  assigned  why  anything  is  right  than 
that  God  commands  it."  And,  yet,  a  few  sentences 
further  : — "  Sometimes  things  are  right  simply  be- 
cause God  has  commanded  them  ;  as  circumcision," 
etc.  Now  put  all  together !  First,  there  is  no 
*'  eternal  and  necessary  difference  between  right  and 
wrong."  Second,  ''things  are  right  or  wrong  simply 
because  God  commands  or  forbids  them"  (p.  405). 


CHAr.  TL]       God's  Will  tJic  Gro2ind  of  Morals.       107 

Third,  ''  He  does  not  will  right  to  be  wrong,  or  wrong 
right."  And,  fourth,  "■  Sometimes  things  are  right 
simply  because  God  has  commanded  them." 

Like  a  serpent,  Reason  stings  the  heel  that  treads 
upon  it. 

We  do  not  deny  that  there  were  plausibilities  in 
the  mind  of  Dr.  Hodge.  We  do  not  conceal  the 
sentences  that  lie  between  these  unassimilable 
things.  We  mean  to  take  those  sentences  and  dis- 
course of  them  and  make  them  the  basis  of  our  as- 
sault. But  demonstrably  these  four  cannot  tally. 
To  say,  *'  White  is  white,"  and  then  a  sentence  after- 
ward, "Black  is  black;"  and  then  after  whole  vol- 
umes, ''  Black  is  white," — may  find  those  volumes 
eloquent  and  able  as  one  may  please,  and  yet  a 
scratch  of  the  pen  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  show 
the  error. 

^  3.  Argument  fror7i  Reason. 

We  pass  over  all  texts  from  Scripture  because 
Dr.  Hodge  resorts  to  none.  If  we  quoted  any,  it 
would  be  those  in  which  God  is  put  quite  on  a  plat 
with  us.  We  are  said  to  be  in  His  image  (Gen.  i. 
27).  This  is  indeed  the  first  dogm'a  of  Scripture 
ethics.  We  are  bid  afterwards  to  be  "holy  because 
[He]  is  holy"  (Lev.  xix.  2);  and  after  that  to  be 
"holy  as  He  is  holy"  (i  Pet.  i.  15).  In  the  Psalms 
of  David  we  are  told  that  "  the  righteous  Lord 
loveth  righteousness  "  (Ps.  xi.  7) ;  and  in  the  Epis- 
tles of  John  (speaking  of  a  fundamental  principle 
of  morals),  "which  thing  is  true  in  Him  and  in 
you"  (i  Jo.  ii.  8). 


lo8  Fct^Ji  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

Now  in  all  these  respects  how  are  we  like  Him  ? 
and  where  do  we  find  our  motive  ?  and  how  are  we 
holy  as  He  is  holy  ?  and  how  can  He  be  said  to 
love  righteousness  ?  and  how  can  a  true  love  be  true 
in  Him  as  well  as  in  us  ?  when  the  very  essence 
of  right  is  manufactured  by  a  decision  of  His  will, 
and  when  ex  vi  there  is  none  till  He  has  made  it,  or 
declared  v/hat  it  shall  be. 

Dr.  Hodge  shrinks  from  all  this,  and  takes 
refuge  almost  immediately  in  expressions  about  the 
divine  "■  natnrer  These  fill  up  the  interval.  These 
bridge  the  chasm  between  the  opposites  that  we 
have  just  been  quoting.  ''The  will  of  God,"  he 
says,  "is  the  expression  or  revelation  of  His  nature  " 
(p.  406).  Would  it  be  unfair  to  demand  that  Dr. 
Hodge  shall  choose  }  Or,  excusing  him  from  that, 
would  it  be  unfair  to  say.  He  certainly  teaches  one 
of  three  things, — either,  first,  that  the  will  of  God  is 
the  ground  of  moral  obligation,  or,  second,  that  the 
nature  of  God  is  the  ground  of  moral  obligation,  or, 
third,  that  the  two  are  one  thing  ;  for  that  the  nature 
and  the  will  are  the  same  in  all  judgment  of  the 
case  .-^  He  certainly  says  the  second, — "  So  that 
the  ultimate  foundation  of  moral  obligation  is  the 
nature  of  God"  (p.  406).  We  have  seen  that  he 
says  the  first.  So  that  our  most  charitable  suppo- 
sition is  to  infer  from  him  the  third,  and  to  suppose 
that  he  prefers  that  for  his  final  statement. 

Now  if  the  ultimate  ground  is  both  Will  and 
Nature,  it  is  fair  to  ask  whether  it  would  be  right  in 
God  to  be  difterent  in  both  of  these.     If  the  ground 


Chap.  II.]      GocV s  Will  tJie  Ground  of  Morals.       109 

of  right's  being  right  is  to  be  found  in  the  existing 
Nature,  and  Dr.  Hodge  distinctly  denies  that  it  is 
right  from  a  nature  in  itseh'',  then  change  the  Na- 
ture, and  we  change  our  existing  hohness.  That  is 
no  forlorn  supposition.  In  oitr  theory  God's  Nature 
cannot  be  changed,  because  it  is  intrinsically  holy. 
We  speak  of  an  ''infinite  goodness/'  and  an  "  im- 
mutable excellence,"  and  so  does  Dr.  Hodge, 
strangest  of  all,  on  this  same  page  (406).  We  be- 
lieve it,  however,  while  Dr.  Hodge  distinctly  de- 
clares that  there  is  no  "  eternal  difference  between 
right  and  wrong."  Now,  if  there  is  no  "eternal  dif- 
ference between  right  and  wrong,"  we  can  suppose 
at  least  that  God's  Nature  had  been  opposite,  and 
then  it  is  fair  to  ask, — Would  all  moral  distinctions 
have  been  actually  reversed  .'* 

The  supposition  is  impossible. 

The  supposition  is  impossible  that  anything 
should  be  difterent  from  what  it  is.  And  yet  the 
Bible  makes  just  such  suppositions  (Ps.  Ixxxi. 
13,  14;  Lu.  xix.  42).  They  let  in  behind  the 
fact  a  distinct  light  upon  its  reality.  If  God's 
Nature  were  opposite  it  would  be  wicked  ;  but 
why  v/icked  if  it  is  His  Nature  t  The  theory  in- 
contestably  breaks  down.  God  can  make  wrong 
right,  or  right  wrong  ;  or  else  there  is  something  as 
eternal  as  Himself,  that  "He  got  possession  of  as 
the  beginning  of  His  way"  (Prov.  viii.  22  ••••). 

Again,  suppose  I  resist  the  will  of  God.  You 
say,  I  will  be  punished.     But  that  does  not  make  it 

*  See  Covimeniarw  in  loco. 


no  Fetich  in  Doctrijie. 


[Book  V. 


wicked.  You  say,  I  will  be  guilty.  But  what  dis- 
'tinctly  do  you  mean  by  that.'*  If  you  mean,  I  shall 
be  exposed  to  punishment,  I  might  say,  I  will  en- 
dure that.  What  is  it  that  obliges  me  to  obey  the 
will  of  God.''  It  is  impossible  not  at  last  to  be 
obliged  to  say.  Because  it  is  zvrong  not  to  ;  so  in 
the  dernier  resort  right  prevails  above  will,  and  we 
are  obliged  to  underpin  even  the  will  of  the  Almighty 
by  the  consideration  that  it  is  wrong  to  violate  it. 
^  4.  The  Error  Fetich. 
And  yet  in  a  system  that  gets  rid  of  intrinsic 
holiness,  the  emphasizing  of  will  is  the  instinct  of 
nature.  Losing  the  kernel  we  accent  the  shell. 
This  is  true  of  all  these  Authority-Doctrines. 
Stealthily  suffering  old-fashioned  rightness  and 
wrongness  to  drop  out  of  our  faith,  to  thicken  up 
the  rest  is  a  matter  of  necessity.  Hence  a  complete 
system  of  nat?cral  traits  :  authority  instead  of  excel- 
lence ;  will  instead  of  character ;  responsibility  in- 
stead of  conscience  ;  a  God  not  humane  even  to  the 
extent  that  man  is,  but  supreme  and  regal,  and 
offering  a  retreat  for  this  in  what  is  now  to  be  called 
an  innate  idea. 

CHAPTER   III. 

THE    IDEA   OF    GOD    INNATE. 

^  I .  Dr.  Hodge'' s  Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 

In  Vol.  I.,  page  191,  of  his  Theology,  Dr.  Hodge 
distinctly  announces  that  "  The  Knoivledge  of  God 
is  Innate. 

Our  doctrine   is   that  there   is  an   eternal  holi- 


CiiAr.  III.]  TIlc  Idea  of  God  Innate.  iii 

ness,  that  we  get  the  idea  within,  that  we  have 
certain  emotions,  that  those  emotions  are  consciously 
right  just  as  other  emotions  are  of  conscious  beauty, 
that  right  is  the  main  attribute  of  God,  that  God  is 
an  inferred  idea  like  heaven  or  like  other  spirits 
than  ourselves,  that  all  His  attributes  are  inferred 
from  attributes  that  are  discerned  in  man,  and, 
therefore,  though  a  simple  being.  He  is  a  most  com- 
plex idea,  in  no  part  innate,  but  in  all  parts  inferred 
and  combined,  and  that  when  we  have  given  Him 
the  attribute  of  right,  we  have  given  Him  the  criti- 
cal trait,  and  all  else — the  power  and  the  infinitude — 
may  be  more  safely  trusted  to  frame  themselves 
together. 

Dr.  Hodge,  making  the  Deity  innate,  gives  us 
the  precision  of  knowing  that  he  cuts  himself  off 
intelligently  from  this  induction.  He  says  (vol.  i.  p. 
199),  ''  The  knowledge  of  God  is  not  due  to  a  pro- 
cess of  reasoning."  He,  like  us,  admits  a  revelation. 
He  is  not  speaking  of  that  source  of  divine  knowl- 
edge that  we  have  in  Scripture.  He  is  speaking  of 
that  which  comes  to  us  besides.  And  while  we 
trace  it  to  an  induction  from  ourselves,  he,  of  course, 
cannot.  He  discards  an  intrinsic  holiness.  He 
builds  his  moral  distinctions  upon  the  will  of  a 
Supreme.  And,  therefore,  he  has  pushed  himself 
off  from  inference.  Like  all  other  fetich  he  must 
resort  to  some  wizard  thing  ;  and,  therefore,  the 
thought  of  something  innate  comes  admirably  into 
play. 

Look  at  it  all  combined. 


112  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

(i)  There  is  no  holiness  as  the  final  aim  but  a 
God  all  for  Himself.  (2)  There  is  no  holiness  that 
is  holy  in  itself,  but  a  holiness  that  is  the  will  of  the 
Almighty.  And  as  that  separates  Him  from  our 
image,  and  takes  away  from  Him  motives  of  right, 
(3)  there  is  no  God  that  we  can  find  pictured  from 
ourselves  ;  no  Deity  that  can  be  learned,  jifted  into 
light  by  making  infinite  attributes  of  our  own  ;  but 
there  is  an  innate  Deity,  and  Dr.  Hodge  distinctly 
tells  us  what,  viz.,  a  Deity  corresponding  to  his  pre- 
vious account, — a  God  all  for  Himself,  and  supreme 
even  over  right,  that  is,  as  he  now  expresses  it,  a 
God  innate  in  our  hearts,  and  innate  in  just  two 
ideas,  that  is,  of  responsibility  and  dependence. 

"  Men  have  the  conviction  that  there  is  a  Being 
on  whom  they  are  dependent,  and  to  whom  they  are 
responsible."  This  conviction  is  opposed  "  to  that 
acquired  by  a  process  of  research  and  reasoning " 
(vol.  i.  p.  191).  "  [God's]  existence  is  a  self-evi- 
dent truth"  (p.  23).  '*It  is  in  the  general  sense  of 
a  Being  on  whom  we  are  dependent  and  to  whom 
we  are  responsible."  "  If  this  idea  is  analyzed  it  will 
be  found  to  embrace  the  conviction  that  God  is  a 
person,  and  that  He  possesses  moral  attributes,  and 
acts  as  a  moral  governor."  "  All  that  is  maintained 
is  that  this  sense  of  dependence  and  accountability 
to  a  being  higher  than  themselves  exists  in  the 
minds  of  all  men"    (vol.  i.  p.  195). 

\  2.  Dr.  Hodge's  Conti-adictions. 
But  hardly  has  all  this  escaped  from  the  lips  of 


Chap.  1 1  I.J         ^/^^'  I^^^<-'^  ^^f  ^^~"-^  Innate.  113 

Dr.  Hodge  before  he  begins  most  singularly  to  con- 
tradict it.  On  page  339  he  asks, — ''  Hozv  do  zve 
know  God?''  He  approaches  this  systematically. 
He  uses  the  very  word,  ''idea!'  "How  does  the 
mind  proceed  in  forming  its  idea  of  God .? "  He 
shows  distinctly  how  it  can  be  formed,  and  depends 
to  form  it  upon  the  very  methods  that  he  had  once 
disowned.  He  says, — "We  deny  to  God  any  limi- 
tation ;  we  ascribe  to  Him  every  excellence  in  the 
highest  degree  ;  and  we  refer  to  Him  as  the  great 
First  Cause  every  attribute  manifested  in  His  works. 
We  are  the  children  of  God,  and,  therefore,  we  are 
like  Him.  We  are,  therefore,  authorized  to  ascribe 
to  Him  all  the  attributes  of  our  own  nature  as  ra- 
tional creatures,  without  limitation,  and  to  an  infinite 
degree.  If  we  are  like  God,  God  is  like  us.  TJiis 
is  tJic  fundamental  principle  of  all  religion.  If  we 
are  His  children,  He  is  our  Father,  whose  image  we 
bear,  and  of  whose  nature  we  partake.  This,  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  word,  is  Anthropomorphism,  a 
word  much  abused,  and  often  used  in  a  bad  sense 
to  express  the  idea  that  God  is  altogether  such  a 
one  as  ourselves,  a  being  of  like  limitations  and  pas- 
sions. In  the  sense,  Jioivever,  jtist  explained,  it  ex- 
presses the  doetrine  of  the  Chtirch,  and  of  the  great 
mass  of  mankind.  Jacobi  well  says  :  '  We  confess, 
therefore,  to  an  Anthropomorphism  inseparable  from 
the  conviction  that  man  bears  the  image  of  God, 
and  maintain  that  besides  this  Anthropomorphism, 
which  has  always  been  called  Theism,  is  nothing 
but  atheism  d.\-\(\  fetichism!" 


114  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

Now,  to  say  the  very  least,  is  not  the  doctrine 
of  Dr.  Hodge  "  besides  this  Anthropomorphism  ? " 
Nay,  is  it  not  against  it  ?  I  have  conscience.  I 
have  a  sense  of  right.  I  have  a  love  of  truth,  on  its 
own  account.  Dr.  Hodge  has  articulately  stated 
that  God,  my  image-bearer,  has  nothing  of  the  kind. 
I  have  holiness  as  my  highest  end,  and  yet  Dr. 
Hodge  takes  pains  to  say  that  God's  highest  end  is  but 
Himself ;  and,  moreover,  that  there  is  nothing  right 
in  a  sense  that  he  specifically  states  "in  the  fit- 
ness of  things,"  or,  as  he  boldly  puts  it  forth, 
through  '*an  eternal  and  necessary  difference  be- 
tween right  and  wrong." 

There  are,  therefore,  two  impinging  contradic- 
tions in  Dr.  Hodge.  The  first  is  a  historical  one. 
We  do  not  get  our  idea  of  God  innately  if  we  get  it 
by  putting  our  own  attributes  together.  And,  sec- 
ondly, if  we  put  our  own  attributes  together  we 
would  not  frame  Dr.  Hodge's  God,  for  his  God  dis- 
cards for  attributes  what  is  intrinsical  like  ours,  and 
implants  as  an  idea  what  is  a  mere  responsibility 
to  His  will. 

§  3.  Argument  from  Scripture, 

By  a  singular  fatality  Dr.  Hodge  rests  the  whole 
weight  of  this  upon  one  passage.  He  leans  upon 
that  one  remarkably,  and  with  a  singleness  that  it 
is  hard  to  explain.  *'  The  Bible  asserts,"  he  says, 
"  that  the  knowledge  of  God  is  thus  universal.  This 
it  does  both  directly  and  by  necessary  implication. 
The    Apostle    directly    asserts    in    regard    to    the 


CiiAr.  III.]         The  Idea  of  God  Innate.  1 1 5 

heathen  as  such  without  Hmitation,  that  they  have 
the  knowledge  of  God,  and  such  knowledge  as  to 
render  their  impiety  and  immorality  inexcusable." 
"  He  says  of  the  most  depraved  of  men,  that  they 
knew  the  righteous  judgment  of  God,  that  those  who 
commit  sin  are  worthy  of  death"  (Rom.  i.  32). 
''  All  this  is  done  without  any  preliminary  demon- 
stration of  the  being  of  God.  It  assumes  that  men 
know  that  there  is  a  God,  and  that  they  are  subject 
to  this  moral  government."  And  he  quotes,  to  sub- 
stantiate all  this,  Rom.  i.  19-21.  **  Because  that 
when  they  knew  God,  etc."  I  say,  he  quotes  it  with 
a  singular  fatality,  because  this  passage,  of  all  other 
passages  in  the  Bible,  places  this  knowledge  exactly 
where  Dr.  Hodge  denies  it  to  be,  viz.,  on  the  plat  of 
observation  and  experience !  Do  not  let  us  look 
carelessly  at  this.  It  is  vital  to  our  view  of  the  sub- 
ject, and  awkward,  to  say  the  very  least,  as  the  se- 
lected testimony  of  Dr.  Hodge  (see  vol.  i.  p.  195). 

The  Apostle  is  indeed  proving  the  extensiveness 
of  the  knowledge  of  God.  Whether  he  pronounces 
it  universal  I  can  hardly  say.  He  is  speaking  ''  of 
men  who  hold  the  truth  in  unrighteousness"  (v.  18). 
But  instead  of  saying  that  they  get  their  knowledge 
as  innate,  he  expressly  says  the  contrary.  He  says, 
"  God  hath  shewed  it  unto  them"  (v.  19).  He  tells 
us  how  He  ''  hath  shewed  it  unto  them."  ''  For  the 
invisible  things  of  Him  from  the  creation  of  the 
world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the 
things  that  are  made,  even  His  eternal  power  and 
Godhead,  so  that  they  are  without   excuse."     He 


1 1 6  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

does  go  on  to  say, — ''Because  that  when  they  knew 
God ; "  but  it  is  superfluous  to  add,  that  he  has  given 
us  the  only  mode  in  which  any  man  has  a  right  to 
quote  him  as  an  authority  in  the  case. 

"  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God."  We 
believe  that  the  Divinity  is  specifically  not  innate. 
We  believe  that  the  idea  is  laboriously  and  empi- 
rically acquired  ;  or,  that  it  has  been  revealed  ;  that 
it  is  hereditary  ;  that  it  may  be  increased  ;  that  it 
must  be  studied,  and  kept  accurate  by  the  patience 
of  the  saints  ;  that  it  would  be  as  right  to  say  that 
a  logarithm  was  innate,  as  that  God  was  an  innate 
idea  ;  and,  moreover  (with  humility  and  respect), 
that  such  an  idea  ouofht  not  to  have  been  conceived, 
inasmuch  as  God  is  one  of  the  most  complex  no- 
tions of  the  mind,  and  only  simple  things  are  con- 
ceived of  as  innate  even  by  that  school  of  (as  w^e 
believe)  mistaken  metaphysics, 

<^  4.  Argument  fj'om  Reason. 

Dr.  Hodge  argues  for  it,  however;  and  attempts 
the  usual  tests  of  tmiversality  and  necessity. 

But  let  us  quote  his  language : — 

"  The  question  now  is,  whether  the  existence  of 
God  is  an  intuitive  truth.?  Is  it  given  in  the  very 
constitution  of  our  nature  }  Is  it  one  of  those  truths 
that  reveal  themselves  to  every  human  mind,  and 
to  which  the  mind  is  forced  to  assent.-^  In  other 
words,  has  it  the  characteristics  of  universality  and 
necessity.?"  (i.  p.  194.) 


Chap.  III.]         The  Idea  of  God  Innate.  117 

Let  us  be  very  rigid  here.  These  are  the  very 
essences  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Books. 

He  goes  on  : 

''It  should  be  remarked  that  when  universahty 
is  made  a  criterion  of  intuitive  truths,  it  is  intended 
to  apply  to  those  truths  only  which  have  their  foun- 
dation or  evidence  in  the  constitution  of  our  na- 
ture. ""'•'•■ 

Let  us  pause  a  moment. 

The  idea  of  a  God  has  its  foundation  or  evidence 
in  the  constitution  of  our  nature.  Things  that  have 
their  foundation  or  evidence  in  the  constitution  of 
our  nature  are  to  be  known  by  universality  and 
necessity.  Universality  can  only  be  pleaded  in  the 
instance  of  those  truths  "  which  have  their  foundation 
or  evidence  in  the  constitution  of  our  nature ! " 
(i.  p.  194.) 

There  is  something  loose  there  certainly. 

But  let  us  go  on. 

"When  it  is  asked  whether  the  existence  of  God 
is  an  intuitive  truth,  the  question  is  equivalent  to 
asking.  Whether  the  belief  in  His  existence  is 
universal  and  necessary  t  If  it  be  true  that  all  men 
do  believe  there  is  a  God,  and  that  no  man  can  pos- 
sibly disbelieve  His  existence,  then  His  existence  is 
an  intuitive  truth.  It  is  one  of  those  given  in  the 
constitution  of   our  nature;    or  which,    our  nature 

*  What  drives  Dr.  Hodge  to  this  is  remembering  that  mistakes 
have  been  universal,  as,  for  example,  the  rising  of  the  sun.  "If 
ignorance  be  universal,  error  may  be  universal.  All  men,  for  exam- 
ple, for  ages  believed  that  the  sun  moves  round  the  earth  ;  but  the 
universality  of  that  belief  was  no  evidence  of  i-ts  truth"  (i.  p.  194). 


1 1 8  Fetich  hi  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

being  what  it  is,  no  man  can  fail  to  know  and  to 
acknowledge"  (i.  p.  194). 

After  giving  up  universality  as  universality,  and 
going  over  for  what  it  was  to  prove  largely  to  the 
thing  itself,  it  would  be  odd  if  Dr.  Hodge  should 
give  up  universality  as  absolutely  universal,  and  be 
driven  in  distress  in  that  direction,  too,  to  some  other 
test. 

And  yet,  listen  to  him. 

"  Even  if  the  fact  be  admitted,  that  such  tribes 
have  no  idea  of  God,  it  would  not  be  conclusive  (!). 
Should  a  tribe  of  idiots  be  discovered,  it  would  not 
prove  that  reason  is  not  an  attribute  of  our  nature  " 
(p.  196).  But  why  }  Because, — *'  It  is  hardly  con- 
ceivable that  a  human  soul  should  exist  in  any  state 
of  development,  without  a  sense  of  responsibility, 
[i.  e.,  the  very  thing  to  be  demonstrated  !]  and  this 
involves  the  idea  of  God." 

How  singular  this  thing  is, — Dr.  Hodge,  one  of 
the  ablest  of  our  Church ;  keen  in  argument ;  noted  as 
a  veteran  in  debate  ;  and  lucid  and  ehiphatic  beyond 
almost  any  one  beside  ;  and  yet,  in  chase  of  a  most 
dangerous  thought,  doubling  upon  his  track  in  a 
way  unconscious  to  himself!  The  idea  of  God  is  in- 
nate (vol.  i.  p.  191).  An  idea  is  certainly  innate 
when  it  is  universal  and  necessary  (p.  194).  Nev- 
ertheless, an  idea  may  be  universal  and  yet  not  be 
innate,  as,  for  example,  the  rising  of  the  sun.  An 
idea  innate,  because  universal,  must  be  an  idea  uni- 
versal and  also  having  its  foundation  in  the  nature 
of   things   (p.  194).     Moreover,  the   knowledge  of 


CriAr.  III.]         The  Idea  of  God  lunate.  119 

God  is  said  not  to  be  universal  (p.  196).  Grant  it 
is  not  (!).  That  would  not  prove  it  not  to  be  innate 
(p.  196).  Nevertheless,  it  uinst  be  universal;  be- 
cause how  could  a  human  soul  **  exist  without  a 
sense  of  responsibility,  and  this  involves  the  idea  of 
God  ?  "  (i.  p.  197.) 

Let  no  one  say, — This  is  ex  facie  caricature.  I 
beg  that  the  pages  may  be  searched  in  the  same 
fair  way  in  which  they  have  been  articulately  quoted. 

But  the  above  is  not  all.  Our  principle  is, 
that  there  is  a  per  se  and  natural  holiness.  Dr. 
Hodge  denies  it.  We  hold  that  there  is  an  intrinsic 
difference  between  right  and  wrong,  and  that  God 
Himself  accepts  it.  Dr.  Hodge  states  this  doc- 
trine, and  ranges  it  with  those  that  are  palpably  er- 
roneous (i.  p.  406).  He  comes  now  to  his  idea  of 
God,  and  cannot  make  it,  as  we  can,  out  of  a  con- 
scious knowledge  of  the  emotion  of  holiness.  He, 
therefore,  pronounces  it  innate.  He  proves  it  in- 
nate, because  it  is  imiversat  and  necessary.  He 
stumbles,  we  have  seen,  under  the  first ;  but  then 
we  expect  he  will  make  it  up  when  he  comes  to  the 
second.  What  is  our  amazement,  when  he  has  fal- 
tered visibly  as  to  the  universal,  and  thrown  all  the 
weight  upon  the  necessary,  to  find  him  appealing,  as 
his  main  proof  that  it  is  necessary,  to  the  fact  that  it 
is  universal  1 1 !  We  scarce  know  of  such  a  thing 
in  theological  literature.  "  If  it  be  admitted  that 
the  knovvdedge  of  God  is  universal  among  men,  is 
it  also  a  necessary  belief.'*  Is  it  impossible  for  the 
mind  to  dispossess  itself  of  the  conviction  that  there 


1 20  FeticJi  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V 

is  a  God  ?  Necessity,  as  remarked  above,  may  be 
considered  as  involved  in  universality,  at  least  in 
such  a  case  as  this.  There  is  no  satisfactory  way 
of  accounting  for  the  universal  belief  in  the  exis- 
tence of  God,  except  that  such  belief  is  founded 
on  the  very  constitution  of  our  nature"  (p.  197). 

I  said  ''  main  proof"  If  any  one  objects  to  that, 
and  says  I  ought  to  have  been  satisfied  with  saying, 
it  is  his  first  proof,  I  will  give  the  other  most  gladly. 
It  is,  that  men  implicitly  believe  in  their  moral  na- 
ture. We  have  been  arguing  for  just  that  thing 
with  all  our  might.  We  have  held  that  there  is  an 
intrinsic  holiness  ;  that  men  are  conscious  of  it ;  that 
it  is  a  dictate  of  conscience  ;  that  it  is  inwrought  in 
the  very  constitution  of  our  being.  Dr.  Hodge  is 
also  aware  of  the  like,  for  he  taxes  some  people  with 
it  and  goes  against  it  as  destroying  the  sovereignty 
of  Heaven  (p.  406).  And  yet  from  words  and 
phrases  that  are  certainly  more  ours  than  his  he  lays 
a  foundation — for  doing  what  .'*  Now  let  us  be  very 
precise  and  pains-taking.  We  need  the  very  edge 
of  what  is  definite.  He  lays  the  foundation  of  do- 
ing what }  Does  he  claim  our  doctrine  }  That 
would  be  strange  enough.  But  he  claims  it  for 
the  very  purpose  of  defeating  it.  He  comes  over 
to  our  side,  and  takes  a  doctrine  which  looks  right 
into  our  point  of  intrinsic  holiness  ;  which  he  him- 
self could  be  forced  to  admit  was,  at  the  very  least,  as 
favorable  to  us  as  it  could  possibly  be  dreamed  to 
be  to  him, — and  makes  it  the  foundation  of  over- 
turning our  ground,  and  building  up  his  own. 


Chap.  III.J         The  Idea  of  God  Innate.  1 2 1 

He  does  it  first  under  the  former  head.  When 
driven  into  difficulty  about  the  tiniversal,  and  forced 
to  look  out  of  itself  for  its  own  support  (though  let  it 
be  remembered,  it  was  to  be  itself  a  support,  and  an 
intrinsic  argument)  he  turns  at  once  to  our  position. 
**  Unless  such  people  show  that  they  have  no  sense 
of  right  and  wrong,  there  is  no  evidence  that 
they  have  no  knowledge  of  such  a  being  as  God " 
(i.  p.  197). 

This  he  pursues  ad  ujiguem  under  the  head  of 
necessity.  '*  The  simple  fact  of  Scripture  and  expe- 
rience is,  that  the  moral  law,  as  written  upon  the 
heart,  is  indelible"  (p.  198).  That  we  believe,  and 
connect  it  with  the  consciousness  that  the  moral  law 
is  excellent  in  itself.  Dr.  Hodge  accepts  it  also  ; 
inconsistently  we  see,  but  of  that  we  are  not  now 
to  complain.  The  point  we  wonder  at  is  that  he 
should  take  this  as  his  argument.  Universality  had 
half  failed.  Necessity  seemed  now  everything. 
And  after  having  cleared  the  track,  and  shown  that 
there  are  three  kinds  of  necessity  ;  first,  of  truisms, 
such  as  that  a  given  part  is  less  than  the  whole  ; 
second,  of  externals,  as  that  ''  a  man  cannot  deny 
that  he  has  a  body ; "  and,  third,  of  such  facts  as 
the  existence  of  God, — we  might  naturally  expect 
the  very  firmest  and  most  conclusive  reasoning. 
Instead  of  that  we  have  nothing  but  this  premise 
common  to  both.  . 

That  man  has  a  moral  nature,  in  that  he  sees  a 
difference  between  right  and  wrong,  it  was  natural 
to  suppose  that  Dr.  Hodge  would  declare  could  be 
6 


1 22  FcticJi  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

reconciled  to  his  teaching,  but  that  he  should  adopt 
it  as  his  chiefest  argument  ;  nay,  make  it  the  only 
one,  as  in  its  very  self  the  same  as  a  sense  of  re- 
sponsibility to  God  (p.  197)  ;  and  that  he  should  do 
this  without  apparent  consciousness  that  in  the 
adverse  theory  it  was  to  say  the  very  least  equally  in 
place, — is  to  take  one  of  the  grandest  arches  of 
his  system,  and  to  seek  for  it  an  abutment  such  that 
we  can  look  under  it,  and  actually  see,  that  it  can 
have  no  separate  foundation. 

.  ^  5,   The  Idea  conceived  of,  a  Fetich. 

That  the  idea  of  God  is  innate,  if  Dr.  Hodge  had 
been  satisfied  with  that,  might  have  seemed  to  be  a 
harmless  error.  But  he  has  gone  further.  He  has 
told  us  what  that  innate  idea  is. 

Now,  sadly  enough,  it  is  one  of  those  Godnesses, 
if  I  might  coin  such  a  word,  which  is  no  God  at  all,  any 
more  than  the  metal  of  an  idol.  He  tells  us  that 
the  idea  we  have  is  of  Responsibility  to  a  Supreme. 

Now  I  boldly  aver  that  there  is  not  in  this  the 
least  particle  of  worship. 

Let  me  be  clear. 

Had  God  shown  Himself,  then  I  confess  there 
would  come  responsibility.  Give  me  my  idea  of 
God ;  that  is,  of  a  being  of  intrinsic  goodness ; 
make  Him  all  I  care  for,  that  is,  all  I  feel  endan- 
gered about,  I  mean  a  thought  in  my  mind  of  ineffa- 
ble holiness,  and  then  I  become  responsible.  But 
Dr.  Hodge  sets  responsibility  at  the  top.  That  is 
he  makes  God  all  for  Himself;  he  makes  God  abso- 


CiiAr.  IV.]      Vengeance  a  Primordial  Attribute.      123 

lutely  manufacture  holiness ;  he  makes  goodness 
mean  obsequiousness  to  His  will;  and  then,  of 
course,  he  makes  my  very  idea  of  God  consist  in 
responsibility.  Now,  boldly,  such  responsibility  is 
not  even  good. 

This  is  just  what  the  idolater  does.  He  expels 
holiness  from  his  idol,  and  then  worships  him  out  of 
a  responsibility  which  is  a  dream. 

Our  argument,  therefore,  is  twofold.  If  feeling 
responsible  were  a  duty  it  would  not  be  my  grand 
duty,  nor  v^^ould  it  be  the  grandest  way  originally  to 
express  it.  My  grandest  duty  is  to  holiness.  God  is 
nothing  to  me  ;  I  am  not  bound  to  worship  Him  ; 
I  do  not  care  for  Him,  till  I  find  out  that  He  is 
holy.  That  He  created  me  is  no  claim  at  all.  He 
wronged  me,  unless  He  can  be  holy.  My  heart, 
which  He  has  created  in  His  image,  goes  searching 
about  till  it  can  think  of  Him  as  holy.  When  that 
happens  I  can  feel  that  I  am  responsible. 

One  sees,  therefore,  our  two  points.  We  can- 
not feel  responsible  till  we  think  of  Him  as  holy, 
and,  therefore,  a  sense  of  responsibility  seniet  ipso 
is  a  cheat,  first,  because  the  right  responsibility 
must  have  known  of  Him  a  parte  ante,  and  second, 
because  the  wrong  responsibility  can  be  no  formed 
idea  of  Divinity  at  all. 

CHAPTER   IV. 

VINDICATORY  JUSTICE   AS   A   PRIMORDIAL   ATTRIBUTE   OF   GOD. 

^   I.  Dr.   Hodge's  Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 
Bv  an  odd  coincidence,  when  I  had  written  this 


1 24  Fetich  in  Doctj^inc.  [Book  V. 

heading  and  felt  too  fatigued  to  go  forward  with  the 
work,  my  eye  fell  upon  a  copy  of  Ossian,  covered 
with  dust,  that  had  been  thrown  upon  a  chair  near 
me  ;  I  opened  it  hap-hazard,  and  came  upon  this  as 
my  very  first  sentence  : — 

*'  'Annir,'  said  Starno  of  lakes, '  was  a  fire  that  con- 
sumed of  old.  He  poured  death  from  his  eyes  along 
the  striving  fields.  His  joy  was  in  the  fall  of  men. 
Blood  to  him  was  a  summer  stream,  that  brings  joy 
to  withered  vales,  from  its  own  mossy  rock. ' " 

It  is  this  blood-thirsty  character  that  we  charge 
Dr.  Hodge  with  implying  in  the  Almighty. 

To  be  perfectly  fair,  we  will  assume  all  responsi- 
bility by  describing  our  creed  first. 

We  believe  that  holiness  is  a  quality :  that  holi- 
ness in  its  other  sense,  viz.,  of  those  things  in  which 
this  quality  is  found,  is  two  things,  and  that  these 
two  are  both  emotions  : — first,  a  love  to  the  welfare 
of  other  beings,  and  second,  a  love  to  the  quality  of 
holiness  itself.  These  two  are  primordial.  These 
two  are  all  that  are  primordial ;  and  all  other 
emotions  or  acts  are  right  or  wrong,  not  sim- 
ply as  agreeing  with  these  two,  but  as  being,  phi- 
losophically stated,  but  instances  under  them. 
Nothing,  therefore,  not  benevolence,  or  not  a  love 
of  right  as  intrinsically  excellent,  can  be  a  primor- 
dial morality  of  God. 

But  God,  in  being  benevolent,  and  in  being  re- 
gardful of  holiness,  finds  punishment,  in  the  very 
nature  of  the  world,  and  by  the  very  constitution 
that  He  has  made,  a  good  instrument  for  advancing 


Cii-vp.  IV.]      Vengeance  a  Prim  or  dial  Attrihnte.      125 

holiness.  It  is  so  naturaliter ;  it  is  so  from  the 
very  depths  of  our  being. 

It  is  not  so  for  its  effect  upon  its  victim  ;  for 
sometimes  its  victim  may  be  accursed,  as  in  the  in- 
stance of  the  reprobate.  But  it  is  so  over  the  sum 
of  creatures.  Punishment,  therefore,  is  an  instru- 
ment. A  resort  to  it  is  not  out  of  a  primary  trait, 
but  out  of  a  wide  expediency. 

Vindicatory  justice,  therefore,  is  not  a  primordial 
attribute  in  God,  and  scarce  a  secondary  one.  It  is 
a  bundle :  I  mean,  a  convenient  phrase  for  putting 
together  a  whole  story  as  to  government.  It  means 
that  God  has  two  traits,  benevolence  and  a  love  of 
holiness  ;  that  these  two  traits  govern  His  Provi- 
dence, and  make  Him  desire  holiness  and  desire  hap- 
piness in  all  His  creatures  ;  that  punishment  is  a 
means  to  promote  them ;  that  this  means  is  in  the 
very  nature  of  the  case  ;  that  He  feels  bound,  there- 
fore, to  resort  to  it  ;  that  He  has  sworn,  therefore, 
to  resort  to  it  ;  and  as  it  is  a  means  imbedded  in 
the  very  nature  of  truth,  there  is  no  fear  but  that 
He  will  always  feel  bound  for  its  administration. 

Having  sworn  to  punish  sin,  He  is  bound  to. 
Having  sworn  to  punish  sin,  He  was,  that  shows, 
otherwise  bound  to.  He  is,  therefore,  bound  in 
both  ways,  consequentially  by  His  oath,  and  antece- 
dently by  the  facts  that  made  Him  swear  it.  But 
they  are  not  moral  facts.  The  only  intrinsically 
moral  facts  are  the  duty  of  benevolence  and  the 
duty  of  love  to  the  principle  of  holiness.  Punish- 
ment is  a  mere   instrument.      To  fear  it  is  mere 


126  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [BookV. 

nature,  and  to  employ  it  is  mere  inferential  duty ; 
and  in  punishment  itself  there  is  no  more  sphere  of 
morals,  than  in  the  axe  or  the  froe,  that  a  man  may 
wield  for  an  industrious  maintenance.  When, 
therefore.  Dr.  Hodge  declares  (i.  p.  418)  that  a  man 
has  a  conscious  guilt,  such  that  he  feels  that  he  has 
a  desert  of  punishment,  he  is  journeying  into  the 
intuitive  with  that  which  has  about  as  much  right 
to  any  such  genesis  for  its  belief,  as  our  belief  in 
food,  or  in  any  of  the  material  dependancies  of  our 
being. 

We  believe  God  is  just.  But  we  believe  that 
that  means  that  He  loves  holiness  ;  and,  something 
more  than  that,  that  He  knows  how  punishment  can 
promote  it ;  and,  therefore,  as  an  instance  of  His 
holiness.  He  is  just,  because  He  draws  not  back 
from  that  painful  means  which  wisdom  and  holiness 
by  necessity  must  approve. 

Dr.  Hodge,  on  the  contrary,  ranges  benevolence 
and  justice  together,  and  makes  them  primordial 
alike.  Let  us  listen  to  him.  He  says, — ''We 
ascribe  intelligence,  knowledge,  power,  holiness, 
goodness  and  truth  to  God.  On  the  same  grounds 
we  ascribe  to  God  justice."  There  is  much  to  ob- 
ject to  in  this  : — for  example,  '*  intelligence  "  and 
''  knowledge  "  mean  the  same  thing  ;  "  goodness  " 
is  a  part  of  "holiness;"  and  **  truth"  or  truthful- 
ness is  not  primordial  any  more  than  ''justice," 
Paul  himself  finding  a  different  generalization  for  it 
in  his  epistle  to  the  Romans  (Rom.  xiii.  9).  But 
what  we  are  concerned  about  at  present  is  the  gen- 


Cii.vr.  IV.]     Vengeance  a  Primordial  Attribute.      127 

eralization  of  "justice."  Dr.  Hodge  makes  it  a 
genus  by  itself.  "  [Men]  also  know  intuitively,"  he 
says,  "  that  God  is  just  as  well  as  holy  ;  and  there- 
fore, that  His  moral  perfection  calls  for  the  punish- 
ment of  sin  by  the  same  necessity  by  which  He  dis- 
approves and  hates  it"  (i.  p.  421).  Satisfaction,  he 
declares,  is  a  thing  demanded  in  itself  considered. 
**  A  man,  when  thus  convinced  of  sin,  sees  that  not 
only  would  it  be  right  that  he  should  be  punished, 
but  that  the  justice  or  moral  excellence  of  God  de- 
mands his  punishment.  It  is  not  that  he  ought  to 
suffer  for  the  good  of  others,  or  to  sustain  the  moral 
government  of  God,  but  that  he  as  a  sinner,  and  for 
his  sins,  ought  to  suifer.  Were  he  the  only  creature 
in  the  universe,  this  conviction  would  be  the  same 
both  in  nature  and  degree  "  (i.  p.  421).  Now  what 
does  this  mean  }  Not  simply  that  it  is  wise  that  he 
should  suffer  ;  for  wisdom  means  skill  in  adapting 
instrumentalities  to  an  end  ;  but  that  it  is  right  that 
he  should  suffer,  in  sucK  a  sense  that  there  is  a  justice 
that  demands  it  semet  ipso, — a  guilt  that  intuitively 
accepts  it,  and,  therefore,  a  primary  attribute  that 
desires  it,  just  as  benevolence  and  its  sister  trait 
desire  our  welfare  and  desire  the  holiness  of  all  the 
universe.  One  desire  is  just  co-ordinate  with  the 
other  two? 

And,  therefore.  Dr.  Hodge  proceeds  to  assert  the 
distinctness  of  justice  and  benevolence.  He  does 
not  bring  in  the  other  trait,  and  therefore,  I  think 
he  is  unfair  in  his  polemic.  He  does  not  speak  of  the 
ADVANCEMENT  of  HOLINESS.    He  is  always  aiming  at 


128  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book.  V. 

the  *'  greatest-happiness-theory."  He  never  speaks 
of  the  greatest  hoUness.  He  pits  justice  against 
benevolence.  He  would  imply  that  that  is  the  only 
alternative.  And  when  he  speaks  against  the 
Apostolic  Fathers  he  makes  Clemens  Alexandrinus 
say, — *'  Men  should  remember  that  punishment  is  for 
the  good  of  the  offender  and  for  the  prevention  of 
evil"  (Paedagogus  i.  viii.),  and  then  goes  on  to 
speak  as  though  "  evil "  could  only  be,  as  opposed  to 
happiness  (i.  p.  419).  This  is  a  vice  all  through 
these  volumes.  Yet  still,  as  justice  is  the  hand- 
maid of  benevolence,  its  serving  a  higher  end  does 
not  prevent  it  from  being  misstated  when  it  is  de- 
clared to  be  distinct  from  benevolence.  Witness, 
therefore,  the  statement  on  another  page, —  ''If 
justice  and  benevolence  are  distinct  in  us  they  are 
distinct  in  God"  (i.  p.  420  ;  see  also  422).  No  one 
will  challenge  us,  then,  for  the  statement  that  Dr. 
Hodge's  doctrine  of  justice  is, — That  it  is  on  the 
same  plat  with  benevolence,  and  hungers  after  its 
end,  just  as  benevolence  does  after  the  welfare  of 
the  creation. 

•^  2.  Dr.  Hodge^s  Contradiction.^ 

Benevolence,  though,  is    so    primordial  that   if 
justice  hungers  after  its  end  as  directly  as  benevo- 

*  Sometimes  \Ye  think  of  the  contradictions  of  Ur.  Hodge  (even 
when  elaborate)  as  wholly  inadvertent,  and  as  expressing  no  positive 
idea  of  Dr.  Hodge  whatever.  On  what  possible  theory  can  we 
reconcile  the  four  hundred  and  ninety-seventh  and  the  four  hundred 
and  ninety-ninth  pages  of  the  third  volume? — On  page  497  we 
read, — "  The  victims  then   offered,  having  no   inherent  dignity  or 


CiiAr.  IV.       Vengeance  a  Primordial  Attrihiitc.      129 

lence,  Dr.  Hodge  feels  himself  in  unpleasant  near- 
ness to  the  doctrine  of  revenge.  There  begin  to 
blow  upon  him  the  hot  winds  of  a  resentful  anger  ; 
and  he  dreads  ascribing  to  God  what  would  be 
thoroughly  disgraceful  to  a  perfect  creature.  He 
takes  the  word  "  vindictive^'  therefore,  and  tries  to 
make  a  distinction  ;  just  as  he  might  take  the  word 
selfish  under  the  first  doctrine,  and  say, — God  does 
everything  for  Himself  yet  God  is  not  selfish.  We 
see  at  a  glance  that  the  discrepance  aimed  to  be 
expressed  is  a  discrepance  verecinidice.  Selfish- 
ness is  used  as  a  reproach.  Vindictiveness  \s  \\sq(\ 
as  a  reproach.  Vindicatoriness  means  articulately 
the  same.  That  vindicatoriness  is  not  vindictive 
means  simply  that  God  may  vindicate,  and  yet  not 
be  wrong :  except,  now,  what  we  wish  most  care- 
fully  to  notice,    that   vindicatoriness    in    a   proper 

worth,  could  not  take  away  sin  : "  on  page  499, — "  The  common 
doctrine  as  to  these  sin  offerings  is,  (r)  That  the  design  of  such  of- 
ferings was  to  propitiate  God  ;  to  satisfy  His  justice,  and  to  render 
it  consistent  and  proper  that  the  offence  for  which  they  were  offered 
should  be  forgiven ;  (2)  That  this  propitiation  of  God  was  secured 
by  the  expiation  of  guilt ;  by  such  an  offering  as  covered  sin,  so 
that  it  did  not  appear  before  Him  as  demanding  punishment ;  (3) 
That  this  expiation  was  effected  by  vicarious  punishment ;  the  vic- 
tim being  substituted  for  the  offender,  bearing  his  guilt,  and  suffer- 
ing the  penalty  which  he  had  incurred  ;  (4)  That  the  effect  of  such 
sin  offerings  was  the  pardon  of  the  offender,  and  his  restoration  to 
favor  and  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  privileges  which  he  had  forfeited. 
If  this  be  the  true  Scriptural  idea  of  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  then  do  the 
Scriptures  in  declaring  that  Christ  was  a  sacrifice,  intend  to  teach 
that  He  was  the  substitute  for  sinners  ;  that  He  bore  their  guilt  and 
suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  their  stead." 
6* 


1 30  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

sense  may  be  most  hopefully  distinguished  from  all 
that  is  vindictive.  Vindicatoriness,  in  a  proper 
sense,  is  just  what  we  mean  by  justice,  viz.,  that 
goodness  and  sanctity  in  God  which  lead  Him  to 
defend  both  ;  that  benevolence  which  leads  Him  to 
vindicate  our  good,  and  that  holiness  which  leads 
Him  to  vindicate  our  purity  ;  that  love  of  the  quality 
of  right  which  rules  in  God  more  than  any  other  de- 
sire, and  which  leads  Him  to  vindicate  the  law  as 
the  means  of  advancing  the  happiness  and  holiness 
of  all  His  creatures. 

Dr.  Hodge,  denying  this,  leaves  no  difference 
between  vindicatoriness  and  vindictiveness :  in- 
deed, wash  the  odium  from  the  latter,  and  in  deny- 
ing one,  he  denies  all  thinkable  space,  and  all  logi- 
cal possibility,  for  conceiving  of  the  other. 

But  that  is  not  all  he  does. 

He  comes  once  and  again  to  our  own  ground. 
On  page  27  (vol.  i.)  he  says, — *'  It  is  more  congenial 
with  the  nature  of  God  to  bless  than  to  curse,  to 
save  than  to  destroy.  The  Bible  everywhere  teaches 
that  God  delighteth  not  in  the  death  of  the  wicked." 
And  then  in  vol.  ii.  (pp.  204,  205), — **  The  infliction 
of  suffering  to  gratify  malice  and  revenge  is  of 
course  a  crime.  To  inflict  it  for  tJie  attainment  of 
some  right  and  desirable  end  may  be  not  only  jtist 
bnt  benevolent.  Is  not  the  support  of  the  divine  law 
such  an  end  1 "  Now  what  does  this  mean  1  Cer- 
tainly not  the  support  of  God.  It  must  mean  "the 
support  of  the  law"  in  the  mind  of  the  creature. 
And  what  is  meant  by  the  support  of  law  in  the  mind 


CiiAP.  lY.]      'Vengeance  a  Primordial  Attribute.      131 

of  the  creature  ?  Certainly  the  encouragement  of 
his  character.  It  means  the  depression  of  the  crea- 
ture's sins,  the  advancement  of  the  creature's  hoU- 
ness,  and,  however  it  may  happen,  whether  in  the 
victim  or  the  race,  the  advancement  of  good  in 
the  whole  intelligent  creation. 

^  3.    The  Scriptures  that  Dr.  Hodge  quotes. 

The  Scriptures  that  Dr.  Hodge  quotes  are  of 
that  common  kind  that  cannot  possibly  be  distinc- 
tive in  the  controversy.  He  says  on  the  416  page 
(v.  i.).  ''The  Bible  constantly  represents  God  as 
a  righteous  ruler  and  a  just  judge.  These  two  as- 
pects of  His  character  are  not  carefully  distinguish- 
ed. We  have  the  assurance  which  runs  through  the 
Scriptures  that  'The  judge,  of  all  the  earth'  must 
'  do  right'  (Gen.  xviii.  25) :  '  God  is  a  righteous  judge' 
(Ps.  vii.  II,  Ma?^^.).  'He  shall  j  udge  the  world  with 
righteousness'  (Ps.  xcvi.  13):  '  Clouds  and  darkness 
are  round  about  Him  '  "  (Ps.  xcvii.  2).  It  is  such 
texts  that  are  quoted  in  all  the  argument.  Now  if 
any  one  were  denying  that  God  was  just,  these 
would  be  the  texts  ;  but  as  the  point  denied  is  that 
there  are  more  than  two  tables  in  the  law,  these  are 
not  the  texts  to  show  that  justice  has  a  separate 
claim,  and  stands  primordially  among  the  attributes 
of  the  Most  High. 

On  the  contrary,  there  are  Scriptures  that  prove 
that  it  has  not : — 

§  4.  Scriptures  that  Refute  the  Error. 

In  the  XVII Ith  chapter  of  the  prophecy  of  Ezek- 


132  -        FeticJi  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V, 

iel  Jehovah  disclaims  again  and  again  that  He  has 
any  *'  pleasure  in  the  death  of  him  that  dieth"  (see  also 
V.  32  and  chap,  xxxiii.  11).  Jeremiah  repeats  the 
assertion: — "For  he  doth  not  afflict  willingly  nor 
grieve  the  children  of  men.  To  crush  under  His 
feet  all  the  prisoners  of  the  earth,  the  Lord  ap- 
proveth  not"  (Lam.  iii.  33,  34).  Isaiah  (xxviii. 
21)  speaks  of  His  "strange  work,"  and  His  "  strange 
act."  And  Paul  makes  the  doctrine  definite, — "  He 
would  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  to  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth"  (i  Tim.  ii.  4). 

Now,  of  course.  Dr.  Hodge  has  a  meaning 
ready  for  all  these  accordant  passages,  and  it  be- 
comes us  modestly  to  suppose  that  from  the  first. 
But  still  let  me  press  the  question, — Where  is  the 
room  for  any  meaning.^  Among  primordial  traits 
where  is  the  cJiance  for  such  antagonism  1  If  God  be 
primordially  benevolent,  can  He  ever  afflict  will- 
ingly.? And,  therefore,  if  He  be  primordially  just, 
must  not  His  punishments  satisfy  a  trait,  and  must 
not  that  trait /^^/  satisfied,  and  not  breed  a  conduct 
that  is  the  object  of  its  own  aversion  } 
^  5.  Argument  from  Reason. 

Dr.  Hodge's  great  argument  for  his  view  of  vin- 
dicatory justice  is  that  man  is  conscious  of  a  desert 
of  evil.  "  We  do  not  stop  to  ask,  or  to  think,  what 
may  be  the  collateral  effect  on  others  of  the  inflic- 
tion of  punishment.  Anterior  to  such  reflection, 
and  independent  of  it,  is  the  intuitive  perception, 
that  sin  should  be  punished  for  its  own  sake,  or  on 
account  of  its  inherent  ill  desert"  (i.  p.  420). 


Chap.  IV.]      Vengeance  a  Primordial  Attribute.      133 

It  makes  us  helpless  to  have  such  things  asserted. 
How  can  we  appeal  against  any  man's  conscious- 
ness? And  Dr.  Hodge  is  full  of  this  particular  re- 
sort. A  hundred  times  in  his  book  he  appeals  to  the 
consciousness  of  all  men  in  all  ages  (see  p.  229).  For- 
tunately in  this  case  he  draws  a  practical  inference. 
There  we  can  meet  him.  He  quotes,  "  Oualis  homo, 
talis  Deus  : "  "  If  any  one  knows  himself,  he  will 
know  God  (Clemens  Alexandrinus) ;"  ''The  per- 
fections of  God  are  those  of  our  own  souls 
(Leibnitz)"  (i.  p.  374).  Under  the  particular  head 
of  Justice  he  argues, — "■  Instinctive  moral  judgments 
are  as  clear  and  as  trustworthy  revelations  of  the 
nature  of  God  as  can  possibly  be  made.  If  we  in 
obedience  to  the  nature  which  He  has  given  us,  in- 
tuitively perceive  or  judge  that  sin  ought  to  be 
punished  for  its  own  sake,  and  irrespective  of  the 
good  effect  punishment  may  have  on  others,  then 
such  also  is  the  judgment  of  God.  This  is  the 
principle  which  underlies  and  determines  all  our 
ideas  of  the  Supreme  Being.  If  moral  perfection 
be  not  in  Him  what  it  is  in  tis,  then  He  is  in  ns  an 
iinknoivn  sometJiing,  and  zve  nse  words  without 
meaning  zuhen  zve  speak  of  Him  as  holy,  just  and 
good''  (i.  p.  420). 

We  will  not  stop  to  seize  upon  these  sentences 
as  bearing  upon  the  previous  discussion.  If  "  Quahs 
homo,  talis  Deus^'  how  can  God  make  everything 
for  Himself.?  Christ  speed  the  day  when  modern 
theology  will  make  the  Great  Prince  humane  in  the 
better  sense !    We  ought  to  learn  the  principle  from 


134  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book.  V. 

the  very  mission  of  God  Incarnate.  But  let  that 
pass.  What  we  wish  specifically  to  press  is  that  Dr. 
Hodge  defeats  himself.  He  could  not  have  chosen 
a  more  fatal  argument. 

And  let  me  beg  now  that  there  may  be  the  most 
rigid  reasoning ;  for  here  is  the  very  essence  of  our 
common  Christianity. 

If  God  be  *' an  unknown  something"  unless 
"  moral  perfection  be  in  Him  what  it  is  in  us,"  then 
man's  justice  and  God's  justice  must  be  identically 
the  same.  Favorable  to  this  precision  is  that 
anecdote  which  Dr.  Hodge  tells  of  an  English 
judge  wdio  told  a  criminal, — *'  You  are  transported, 
not  because  you  have  stolen  these  goods,  but  that 
goods  may  not  be  stolen"  (ii.  p.  579).  Dr.  Hodge, 
therefore,  seems  to  realize  that  vv^hat  is  asserted  of 
God  must  in  the  end  come  home  to  man. 

Now  here  we  have  a  grand  index.  What  justice 
is  that  which  is  in  the  bosom  of  man  }  Solely  a 
remedial  justice. 

Not  only  can  he  not  execute  vengeance,  but  he 
cannot  entertain  it.  We  are  to  love  our  enemies. 
What  is  competent  for  an  individual  is  competent 
for  a  court.  Man  personally  and  men  in  nations  are 
identically  the  same.  The  judge  who  sits  upon  a 
bench  weeps  when  he  condemns  a  criminal.  Why  t 
Because  the  heart-claim  and  the  law-claim  are  dif- 
ferent :  the  heart-claim  primordial, — the  law-claim 
secondary.  As  a  mystery,  God's  justice  may  be 
deified  ;  but,  if  human,  it  has  intelligible  shape.  Dr. 
Hodge,  bound  fast  to  his  own  simple  dialectic,  God's 


Chap.  IV.]      Vengeance  a  Primordial  Attribute.      135 

justice  being  man's  justice,  and  every  body  knowing 
what  man's  justice  is  ;  everybody  knowing  that  cer- 
tainly it  cannot  take  vengeance,  and  logically  is  reme- 
dial and  makes  a  limit  of  what  is  beneficial  in  the 
State, — we  need  have  no  fear  at  all  about  the  justice 
of  the  Almighty.  If  Dr.  Hodge  will  only  stand  to 
that  one  principle  of  likeness  to  ourselves,  I  feel 
very  sure  that  justice  anywhere  will  never  far  or 
certainly  never  long  harden  into  anger. 

If  that  very  language  is  appealed  to, — God's 
"  anger," — or  still  stronger  expressions,  like  God's 
revenge,  and  what  is  meant  by  "  Vengeance  is 
mine,  I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord," —  I  reply  that 
of  course  every  Scripture  must  have  some  strong 
Saxon  sense  ;  but,  unless  we  are  willing  to  be  literal 
with  all  of  them,  and  make  God  penitent  (Gen.  vi.  6) 
and  "grieved"  (Heb.  iii.  10)  and  ''furious"  (Nah. 
i.  2)  and  "cruel"  (Is.  xiii.  9)  and  "weary"  (Is.  i. 
14)  and  ignorant  (Ps.  liii.  2)  and  deceitful  (i  Kings 
xxii.  23)  and  inquiring  (Ps.  xiv.  2),  we  must  be 
satisfied  to  deal  with  each  in  situ.  They  are  tropi- 
cal. The  trope  is  what  it  may  prove  to  be  in  the  con- 
text ;  and  in  the  instance  of  revenge  (Rom.  xii.  19), 
it  is  but  an  assertion  that  God  has  the  higher  bench, 
and  holds  the  final  court  for  adjudication  among 
men. 

But  Dr.  Hodge  will  ask.  How  about  the  wrath 
upon  the  Redeemer  ?  I  would  reply  in  passing,  that 
Dr.  Hodge  shuts  the  door  upon  this  with  one  of 
his  strange  contradictions.  He  says  (vol.  i.  p.  423), 
— "  If  the  prevention    of  crime    were  the   primary 


136  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [BookV, 

end  of  punishment,  then,  if  the  punishment  of  the 
innocent,  the  execution,  for  example,  of  the  wife 
and  children  of  a  murderer,  would  have  a  greater 
restraining  influence  than  the  punishment  of  the 
guilty  murderer,  their  execution  would  be  just. 
But  this  would  shock  the  moral  sense  of  men." 
It  does  no  doubt.  But  so  do  many  of  the  ways  of 
the  Most  High.  So  with  Achan.  So  with  the 
children  of  the  Canaanites.  So  with  the  sons  of 
the  drunkard  :  indeed,  all  the  posterity  of  Adam. 
Is  it  not  remarkable  that  a  man  who  believes  in 
direct  imputation  and  in  the  vicarious  suffering  of 
Christ,  should  allow  such  a  sentence  to  escape  from 
beneath  his  pen  in  upholding  one  species  of  justice 
to  the  overthrow  of  another. 

For  look  more  specifically, — If  I  am  thirsting 
for  revenge,  I  can  less  afford  to  let  one  victim  suf- 
fer instead  of  another.  If  justice  is  primordial,  it 
whets  its  anger;  it  is  not  pleased  with  the  murder 
of  the  innocent.  If  Christ  was  ever  so  much  a 
volunteer,  still,  if  God  was  righteous  in  taking  ven- 
geance in  Dr.  Hodge's  sense,  we  cannot  conceive  that 
His  own  dear  Son  could  satisfy  His  revenge.  But 
if  we  were  guilty,  and  that  guilt  was  for  the  violation 
of  law,  and  law  itself  was  for  the  good  of  the  uni- 
verse, that  o-Qod  beinof  of  both  kinds,  natural  2:ood 
and  moral  good  ;  punishment,  therefore,  being  an 
expedient,  and  a  stroke  to  which  God  was  pledged, — 
substitution,  naturally,  wears  just  the  look  that  is 
suited  to  such  a  case, — an  artificial  scheme  adjust- 
ed to  an  artificial  instrument.     God's  curse  of  Christ, 


CnAP.  IV.]      Vengeance  a  Primordial  Attribute.     137 

if  He  really  hungered  to  curse  the  wicked,  is  hardly 
thinkable :  but  that  He  should  curse  Christ  under 
a  covenant,  punishment  itself  being  under  a  sort  of 
covenant ;  and  that  He  should  thereby  satisfy  the 
law,  the  law  itself  being  a  governmental  expedient, 
— and  thereby  keep  His  oath, — Dr.  Hodge  himself 
admitting,  as  much  as  we  do,  that  His  atonement 
keeps  it, — appears  to  us  far  more  natural  as  a  reme- 
dial revenge,  than  as  a  something  of  primordial  wrath 
against  the  immediate  sinner. 

Let  not  Dr.  Hodge  say, — It  is  a  mere  drama. 
For,  why  ?  If  sin  really  deserves  punishment,  and 
on  punishment's  account ;  if  guilt  really  asks  for  it, 
and  feels  that  it  needs  it,  and  that  not  as  a  repara- 
tion to  its  mischief  in  the  creation, — then  the  cross 
is  a  real  drama.  Sin  has  not  been  punished.  Guilt 
has  not  had  its  want.  And  the  hunger  of  the  Just 
has  been  fed  on  an  opposite  aliment.  But  if  God 
loves  holiness  ;  if  He  loves  it  supremely  beyond 
anything  beside ;  if  punishment  is  a  means  to  lift 
it  up  ;  if  Hell  itself  is  to  give  it  maintenance,  and 
He  has  framed  a  law  therefore,  and  sworn  that  it 
shall  be  enforced, — then  He  does  not  love  Hell,  but 
He  loves  holiness  ;  and  if  He  can  keep  His  oath 
and  yet  spare  the  sinner,  what  He  could  not  do  if 
He  loved  vengeance  on  its  own  account  we  see  He 
can  do  by  that  other  expedient,  viz.,  Christ  instead  of 
our  perdition. 

§  6.  The  Opposite,  Fetich. 
This  appears  in  two  particulars, — First,  that  God 
is  made  a  figment  in  respect  to  wrath,  and  second, 


138  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [BookV. 

by  a  necessary  repercussion  of  the  thought,  that  He 
is  made  a  figment  in  respect  to  mercy.  In  neither 
case  is  He  a  genuine  Deity.  Let  us  start  in  Dr. 
Hodge's  own  language  : — 

*•'  If  moral  perfection  be  not  in  Him  what  it  is  in 
us,  then  He  is  to  us  an  unknown  something." 

We  will  not  repeat,  that  man  has  no  right  to  take 
vengeance.  Though  Dr.  Hodge  tells  the  anecdote 
of  the  English  judge,  yet,  after  all,  men  would  have 
no  right  to  hang  or  to  fine  but  for  some  sake  of  de- 
fending the  community  from  evil.  We  will  not  ar- 
gue this.  We  are  sure  that  this  much  will  prevail 
in  the  opinions  of  the  people. 

But  if  "  qualis  homo  talis  Dens,''  then  this  is  all 
that  belongs  to  God,  and  what  are  we  to  do  with  Dr. 
Hodge  .'*  Turrettin,  even,  does  not  deal  with  the 
stringency  that  he  does.  He  speaks  of  justice  as 
iiatnraUs  (P.  i.  Lo.  iii.  Ou  :  19).  So  do  we  ;  and  that  in 
a  most  important  sense.  It  is  necessary,  with  our  con- 
stitution, and  has  its  wisdom  in  the  very  nature  of  the 
case.  But  what  are  we  to  do  with  vengeance .''  Notice 
now  its  wonderful  agreements.  We  are  to  have  a 
God  all  for  Himself.  We  are  to  have  a  will  of  God 
which  is  the  ground  of  moral  obligation.  We  are  to 
have  an  idea  of  God  which  is  innate,  and  that  idea 
is  a  conscious  sense  of  responsibility.  Holiness  has 
been  left  out  of  the  account ;  and,  as  we  have  said, 
the  crust  of  what  is  left  has  been  thickened  that  the 
idol  might  stand  up.  Nothing  would  be  more  nat- 
ural after  that  than  to  put  on  the  grim  colors.  Holi- 
ness having  been  discarded,  a  trait  that  would  cer- 


Chap.  IV.]      Vengeance  a  Primordial  Attribute.      139 

tainly  have  been  sufficient  for  everything,  minister- 
ing to  the  good  of  the  creature,  and  setting  punish- 
ment in  its  healthy  place,  punishment  has  to  be 
planted  firm  at  any  rate,  like  horns  upon  Isis  ;  the 
idol  must  have  a  flattened  skull  and  a  distended 
nostril ;  and  hence  the  fetich-taint.  No  one  can 
read  these  sterner  sentences  without  the  fear,  that 
there  is  something  mythic  and  vengeful  like  the  car 
of  the  Hindoo. 

And  then,  mercy !  see  how  that  is  warped  from 
its  natural  direction.  Beginning  everything  with 
the  Scriptural  idea  of  holiness  ;  taking  its  two  pre- 
cepts, and  remembering, — *'  On  these  two  command- 
ments hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets,"  it  is  per- 
fectly easy  for  us  to  tell  how  lost  men  are  saved. 
God  loves  them.  He  has  two  loves,  a  love  for  the 
welfare  of  others,  and  a  love  for  moral  excellence. 
To  these  two  loves  there  ministers  punishment. 
This  it  does  ex  natura.  Its  law  is  in  the  essence  of 
things.  Its  influence  demands  its  use.  Its  use 
has  been  sworn  to  in  a  perpetual  government.  This 
is  the  whole  story  in  nnee.  But  who  are  saved  t 
We  can  say, — All  those  whom  holiness  selects ; 
— all  those  who  can  bear  to  be  saved  consistently 
with  the  holiness,  and  consistently  with  the  happi- 
ness, of  all  the  universe.  There  needs  no  new 
affection.  Love !  That  is  benevolence.  "  God  so 
loved  the  world."  That  is,  wished  its  welfare. 
Out  of  that  one  throat  of  benevolence,  agreed  with, 
and  over-ruled,  by  a  love  of  holiness,  flows  all  the 
fountain  of  eternal  peace.     We  are  equipped,  there- 


140  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book.  V. 

fore.  Out  of  a  ''moral  perfection,"  which  is  "in 
Him  what  it  is  in  us  "  (i.  p.  420),  we  have  a  warm 
Deity,  whom  we  can  look  up  to  and  understand  as 
incarnate  in  the  Redeemer.  But  how  if  holiness 
glides  out  of  view  t 

Dr.  Hodge  has  a  problem  to  settle.  Given  a 
hard  Christ,  who  works  to  display  His  glory  ;  given 
a  hard  right,  which  is  manufactured  by  the  will  of 
the  Almighty  ;  given  a  vengeful  ire,  which  is  to  sat- 
isfy an  appetite  of  God, — how  does  He  draw  dis- 
tinctions .'*  how  can  He  love  one  and  feel  a  ven- 
geance for  another  }  We  can  settle  that  easily.  He 
is  benevolent  towards  all.  To-morrow  would  open 
Tophet  and  let  the  Arch  Fiend  be  a  trophy  of  His 
love  but  for  one  grand  consentaneous  appetite. 
That  appetite  is  for  holiness.  Show  God  how  He 
can  save  consistently  with  the  happiness  and  con- 
sistently with  the  holiness  of  the  widest  universe, 
and  He  will  save  all ;  for  "  His  tender  mercies  are 
over  all  His  works." 

But  Dr.  Hodge  has  cut  himself  off  from  this. 
He  needs  other  attributes.  Brahm,  needing  a  base 
for  one  foot  of  his  crocodile,  must  fain  supply  it. 
And  Doctrinalism  makes  no  account  of  reason.  It 
fables  like  a  Hindoo.  God  bereft  of  holiness  has  to 
have  some  reason  for  destroying  one  man  and  saving 
another.  Dr.  Hodge  supplies  it.  He  speaks  of  a 
"  peculiar,  mysterious,  sovereign,  immeasurable  love, 
which  passes  knowledge"  (i.  p.  549).  How  that 
sounds  like  Vishnoo  !  He  speaks  of  it  as  "infinite" 
(2^.).       How   can    that  be  when  it  can   have   five 


CiT.vr.  IV.]      Vengeance  a  Primordial  Attribute .      141 

objects  instead  of  one  ?  He  says,  "  it  is  discriminat- 
ing, fixed  on  some  and  not  on  others"  {ib.^.  And 
then  to  unfold  his  use  for  it,  he  says, — ''  It  is  to  this 
love,  not  to  general  goodness  or  to  mere  philan- 
thropy, but  to  this  peculiar  and  infinite  love,  the  gift 
of  Christ  is  uniformly  referred  "  (ib^.  To  meet  the 
cavil  that  such  a  love  must  be  a  fetich,  because  it 
clashes  with  the  holiest  attribute  of  character,  he 
boldly  grapples  with  that  principle  of  antagonism, 
and  meets  it  simply  by  affirming  it.  He  says, — "  It 
cannot  be  explained  away  into  mere  general  be- 
nevolence or  philanthrophy.  This  peculiar  love  of 
God  is  not  founded  upon  the  fact  that  its  objects  are 
believers,  for  He  loved  them  as  enemies,  as  ungodly. 
This  representation  is  so  predominant  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, namely,  that  the  peculiar  love  of  God  to  His 
people,  to  His  Church,  to  the  elect,  is  the  source  of 
the  gift  of  Christ,  of  the  mission  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  of  all  other  saving  blessings,  that  it  cannot  be 
ignored  in  any  view  of  the  plan  and  purpose  of  sal- 
vation. With  this  representation  every  other  state- 
ment of  the  Scriptures  must  be  consistent ;  and, 
therefore,  the  theory  that  denies  this  great  and  pre- 
cious truth,  and  which  assumes  that  the  love  which 
secured  the  gift  of  God's  eternal  Son  was  mere 
benevolence  which  had  all  men  for  its  object,  many 
of  whom  are  allowed  to  perish,  is  unscriptural  "  (i.  pp. 

550,  550- 

Now  let  me  be  distinctly  understood.  I  do  not 
deny  election,  and  I  do  not  deny  electing  love  ;  just 
as  I  do  not  deny  destroying  vengeance.     In  the  Ian- 


142  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book.  V. 

guage  of  the  East,  words  are  employed  to  express 
much  under  a  single  expression.  Solomon  says, — 
*'  He  that  spares  the  rod  hates  his  son  "  (Prov.  xiii. 
24),  by  which  I  do  not  understand  that  he  may  not 
dearly  love  him.  Again,  Wisdom  says, — "■  All  they 
that  hate  me,  love  death  "  (Prov.  viii.  36)  ;  by  which 
she  does  not  mean  that  they  do  not  hate  it. 

God  has  but  two  moralities, — He  loves  our  wel- 
fare, and  He  loves  our  holiness.  Doubtless  He 
loves  the  picture  of  what  we  will  be  in  His  eternal 
presence.  But  that  He  loves  us  with  an  infinite 
affection  at  the  same  time  that  He  hates  us  as  un- 
speakably depraved  ;  that  the  bandit  who  has  cut  my 
throat,  and  who  at  the  same  time  is  to  be  converted 
on  the  gallows,  is  the  object  of  a  ''peculiar,  myste- 
rious, sovereign,  immeasurable  love  "  of  God  (i.  p. 
549),  different  from  ''benevolence"  (p.  551),  and 
different  from  esteem,  even  from  that  esteem  which 
is  yet  to  be  for  him  in  all  the  endless  ages,  is  a  mere 
painting  of  the  brain ;  it  is  a  mere  jingle  of  speech, — 
a  river  going  up  stream  and  going  down  stream  at 
a  point  of  time ;  it  is  a  nichts-zvertJi,  beyond  all  man- 
ner of  doubt ;  a-nd  the  Church,  bereft  of  true  thoughts 
of  God,  in  a  long  decline,  has  taken  this  dogma  in 
their  place,  and  hung  it  like  beads  upon  her  Deity. 

Because,  what  can  we  not  find  in  simple  morals  } 
God  is  pitiful.  That  covers  everybody.  He  says 
so.  "  I  say  unto  you,  love  your  enemies,  that  ye 
may  be  the  children  of  your  Father  ;  for  He  maketh 
His  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good  and 
sendcth  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust"  (Matt.  v. 


Chap.  V.]        GotVs  Highest  End  Display.  143 

44,  45).  Now  unite  with  this,  love  of  hohness ; 
make  that  His  extreme  trait,  which  would  sacrifice 
everything  beside, — and  what  do  we  want  of  a  "  pecu- 
liar, mysterious,  immeasurable  love  ? "  On  the  princi- 
ple of  parcimony  we  ought  to  reject  the  rest.  If 
God  pities  all  men,  that  is  the  vis  a  tcrgo.  If  He 
delights  in  holiness,  that  will  keep  him  rigid. 
Indeed  benevolence  and  this  combined  will  both 
appeal  to  Him  to  be  distinctive  in  His  gifts,  and  to 
elect  the  objects  of  them,  without  the  need  of  a  sep- 
arate desire. 

CHAPTER    V. 

god's  highest  end  to  display  his  glory. 

^  I .  Dr.  Hodge's  Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 

Vol.  I.  p.  536.  ''  As  God  is  infinite,  and  all  crea- 
tures are  as  nothing  in  comparison  with  Him,  it  is 
plain  that  the  revelation  of  His  nature  and  perfec- 
tions must  be  the  highest  conceivable  end  of  all 
things."  ''  Whatever  He  does  or  permits  to  be  done 
is  done  or  permitted  for  the  more  perfect  revelation 
of  His  nature  and  perfections."  '*  The  end  of  crea- 
tion, therefore,  is  not  merely  the  glory  of  God,  but 
the  special  manifestation  of  that  glory  in  the  person 
and  work  of  Christ."  ''Having  this  great  end  in 
view,  the  revelation  of  Himself  in  the  person  and 
work  of  His  Son,  He  purposed  to  create,  to  permit 
the  fall,  to  elect  some  to  be  the  subjects  of  His 
grace  and  to  leave  others  in  their  sin"  (vol.  ii.  p. 
321). 


144  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [BookV. 

^  2.  Contradictions. 

We  expounded  these  under  another  head  (p. 
89).  God  is  right,  Dr.  Hodge  labors  to  show,  in 
making  His  own  display  His  highest  end,  and  there- 
by seems  to  admit  that  rightness  must  be  higher 
than  the  display.  Moreover,  he  makes  God's  high- 
est end  to  be  Himself.  This,  as  we  have  already 
expounded  (p.  89),  is  a  different  end  from  the  dis- 
play ;  and  even  if  the  latter  were  His  delight,  it 
would  still  have  to  rest  upon  the  ulterior  aim.  We 
must  not  repeat,  however. 

§  3.   Scriptures. 

Dr.  Hodge  can  find  abundant  Scripture  for 
making  God's  end  His  highest  "■  glory."  This  is  the 
vice  of  his  reasoning.  God's  "glory"  means  His 
weight,  His  excellence ;  for  weight  is  the  very  sense 
of  the  word  in  the  ancient  Hebrew.  God  does 
every  thing  for  His  zueight.  That  is  our  very  doc- 
trine. The  languages  of  men  all  trace  to  matter. 
Straightness, — that  grew  to  mean  righteousness, 
Levelness, — that  our  English  oddly  renders  upright- 
ness, which  is  a  different  idea.  Wholejiess, — that 
we  use  still,  viz., integrity.  Weight  was  a  capital 
word.  It  was  a  word  for  merchants.  When  Isaiah 
says, — ''  The  king  of  Assyria  and  all  his  glory,"  it 
should  be, — "all  his  masses"  (Is.  viii.  7).  The 
verb  meaning,  to  be  heavy,  and  in  the  Hiphil,  to  inake 
heavy,  is  the  common  Hebrew  for  that  thought  all 
through  the  Old  Testament  inspirations. 


Chap,  v.]        God's  Highest  End  Display.  145 

Glory,  therefore,  is  weight.  God's  doing  every- 
thing for  His  own  glory  means  that  He  does  every- 
thing for  His  own  excellence.  And  excellence 
being  simply  holiness,  we  are  back  at  our  principle, 
that  the  great  end  of  God  is  His  own  highest 
holiness. 

This  agrees,  too,  with  the  end  of  man.  The 
chief  end  of  man,  when  it  comes  to  a  matter  of  desire, 
is  God's  holiness.  But  as  that  is  a  fixed  quantity, 
and  we  cannot  increase  it,  our  chief  practical  end  is 
the  holiness  of  the  universe.  The  chief  end  is  holi- 
ness. And  whether  by  God  or  man  the  great  em- 
bodiment of  that  trait  is  seen  to  be  in  the  Most 
High. 

If  Dr.  Hodge  declares  that  there  arc  texts  which 
speak  of  the  display  as  a  great  end,  that  we  admit. 
We  are  treating  of  the  chief  end.  If  he  says  there 
are  advantages  in  the  display  of  God,  that  we  admit 
too.  They  are  advantages  of  the  highest  kind. 
Christ  teaches  us  to  pray, — "  Hallowed  be  Thy 
name."  But  happiness  is  a  great  end  ;  and  pardon 
is  a  great  end  ;  and  beauty  is  a  great  end.  We  are 
not  commenting  on  the  great  ends  of  Heaven  ;  we 
are  only  asking  whether  the  cJiief  end  of  God  is  the 
display  of  His  own  glory. 

§  4.  Argument  from  Reason. 

And  we  say  it  is  not, — first,  because  it  makes  the 

chief  end    of   God   terminate    upon   the    creature. 

That  is  utterly  irreverent.     Where   was   the   grand 

chief  end   in  a  past  eternity  ?     Dr.  Hodge   argues 

7 


14^  FeticJi  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

that  God  is  His  chief  end,  and  then  He  makes  His 
chief  end  take  in  a  drama  before  the  creature. 

Second, — It  moves  the  question,  What  is  God's 
end  in  this  ?  Of  course  it  is  unphilosophical.  A 
chief  end  is  a  chief  end.  A  chief  end  of  a  chief 
end  is  not  to  be  thought  of  And  yet  the  proposi- 
tion,— God's  highest  end  is  the  display  of  His  own 
glory,  allows  all  manner  of  inquiries  to  come  in  be- 
hind, because  we  instinctively  see  that  there  must 
be  a  higher  end  for  showing  Himself  to  the  creation. 

That  higher  end  is  His  holiness. 

^  5.  Everything  else  Fetich. 

In  a  simple  worship,  God's  excellence  of  charac- 
ter takes  the  highest  place.  The  humblest  adore 
it.  A  little  child  would  say,  God's  end  is  to  do 
right.  And  if  we  address  a  child  and  tell  him, — ■ 
God  is  perfect  in  Himself:  He  does  not  need  any 
of  us:  He  wouldnot  have  conceived  a  creation  if 
it  was  to  benefit  Him  and  to  build  Him  up  ;  the 
little  child  can  follow  us  through  all  these  ten  points 
of  Dr.  Hodge.  It  wdll  fill  him  with  rapture  to  think 
that  God  does  everything  in  order  to  give  way  to  in- 
finite holiness.  But  if  I  tell  him,  No;  He  works 
for  Himself;  He  makes  things  right  just  as  He  pre- 
fers ;  all  we  are  bound  to  think  of  is  our  responsi- 
bility to  Him  ;  He  punishes  to  satisfy  His  nature ; 
and  w^e  come  to  be  punished  and  are  finally  lost 
to  manifest  His  glory, — his  face  covers  with  a  cloud, 
and  I  talk  to  him  with  the  jargon  of  a  priest,  and 
put  to  him  conundrums  like  a  heathen  worshipper. 


CnAr.  yi.J        TJiis   Universe  not  the  Best.  147 

CHAPTER   VI. 

THIS    UNIVERSE    NOT   THE   BEST   POSSIBLE. 

§   I.  Dr.  Hodge  States  the  Doctrine. 

On  page  420  (vol.  i.)  he  condemns  the  doctrine 
"  that  this  world,  the  work  of  a  God  of  infinite  be- 
nevolence, wisdom  and  power,  must  be  the  best 
possible  world  for  the  production  of  happiness."  By 
'*  ivorlei''  we  understand  the  writer  to  mean,  universe ; 
otherwise  there  is  no  soundness  or  fulness  to  his 
doctrinal  intimation.  Hell  may  not  be  the  best 
possible  for  happiness,  but  the  universe  it  belongs 
to  may  be.  On  pages  432-3  he  uses  "  the  world," 
''  the  universe  "  and  *'  the  creation,"  interchangeably. 
Unless  he  means  that  the  universe  is  not  the  best 
possible,  he  means  nothing  ;  for  no  class  that  we 
know  of,  make  the  world  the  best  possible,  separated 
from  what  remains.  Accordingly  Dr.  Hodge  inter- 
changes the  expression  in  the  same  sentence  ; — 
"  The  universe  being  the  work  of  God  [this  is  a 
thought  that  he  is  decrying]  must  be  designed  and 
adapted  to  secure  that  end  (the  greatest  possible 
happiness),  and  is,  therefore,  the  best  possible 
world,  or  system  of  things"  (ii.  p.  145).  On  page 
436  (vol.  i.)  he  extends  this  denial  to  holiness.  He 
says, — "  We  are  not  obliged  to  assume  that  this  is 
the  best  possible  world  for  the  production  of  happi- 
ness, or  even  for  securing  the  greatest  degree 
OF  HOLINESS  amoug  rational  creatures."  See  how 
the  Fetich  crops  out,  the  grim  Juggernaut,  not  sim- 


148  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

ply  making  all  things  for  Himself,  but,  in  doing  that, 
not  even  producing  the  best  results  ;  erecting  Himself 
into  a  se  ipso  sovereignty ;  carving  character  out  of 
that ;  breeding  our  idea  of  Him  as  that ;  and  then, 
when  we  might  expect  that  the  display  of  His  glory 
would  produce  the  best  results,  declaring  that  this 
rind  of  a  God  does  not  secure  even  **  the  great- 
est degree  of  holiness  "  in  His  rational  creation. 

^  2.  Contradictions. 

And  yet,  if  we  will  watch  Dr.  Hodge,  he  cannot 
persevere  in  so  unreasonable  an  extreme. 

''That  God,  in  revealing  Himself,  does  promote 
the  highest  good  of  His  creatures,  consistent  with 
the  promotion  of  His  own  glory,  may  be  admitted  " 
(vol  i.  p.  436).  Here  he  advances  so  far  as  to  con- 
cede the  beltistic  theory  except  under  the  caveat 
that  it  must  not  interfere  with  *'  His  own  glory." 
But  in  vol.  ii.  (p.  435)  he  gets  over  that  point; — 
'*  The  self-manifestation  of  God,  being  the  highest 
possible  good,"  etc.  Now  this  might  mean,  **  good" 
in  itself,  just  as  we  have  pronounced  holiness  to  be. 
But  he  goes  further, — "  The  knowledge  of  God  is 
eternal  life.     It  is   for  creatures   the  highest 

GOOD." 

This  is  the  strange  thing  in  Dr.  Hodge  !  that  the 
man  chief  in  dialectic  should  so  double  upon  his 
line. 

And  see  further: — ''The  glory  of  God  is  the 
highest  possible  end.  The  knowledge  of  God  is 
eternal    life.     It    is  the  source  of  all  holiness  and 


Chap,  VI.]        TJiis   Universe  not  the  Best.  149 

all  blessedness  to  rational  creatures"  (i.  p.  567). 
**  The  consequences  of  the  attainment  of  that  end" 
(viz.,  "the  glory  of  God")  "are  undoubtedly  the 
highest  good,  not  necessarily  the  greatest  amount 
of  happiness  "  {ajid  he  has  expressly  said, — "  not  the 
greatest  degree  of  holiness ! "  i.  p.  436,)  "  and  that 
highest  good  may  include  much  sin  and  much 
misery   so   far  as  individuals  are  concerned "  (i.  p. 

568). 

^  3.  Scriptures. 

And  all  this  becomes  more  palpable  when  we 
see  what  Scriptures  are  called  in.  Dr.  Hodge  rests 
everything  upon  the  Scriptures  that  make  God's 
glory  the  great  end  of  all  He  does  (see  vol.  i.  p.  567). 
He  has  a  similar  argument  under  the  head  of  Vin- 
dicatory Justice.  It  amounts  about  to  this, — *  A  red 
cow  is  in  the  paddock  near  the  house,  therefore  a 
black  horse  is  not  in  that  paddock  : '  or,  *  I  saw  him 
eat  peas  for  dinner,  and  therefore  he  certainly  did 
not  take  mustard.'  The  argument  in  case  of  Jus- 
tice is, — "The  amputation  of  a  crushed  limb  is  not 
of  the  nature  of  punishment,"  therefore  punishment 
is  not  an  instrument,  "  and  its  special  design  is  not 
the  good  of  society"  (vol.  ii.  p.  578).  That  is, — 'A 
hoe  is  not  for  the  good  of  the  garden,  because  a 
hoe  is  for  the  killing  of  weeds.  And  the  reason 
will  immediately  appear  when  we  remember  that  a 
rake  is  for  the  good  of  the  garden,  and  is  never  the 
least  for  the  killing  of  weeds.' 

So  in  this  instance  of  the  universe.  "The  only 
satisfactory  method  of  determining  the  question  is 


150  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

by  appealing  to  the  Scriptures"  (i.  p.  567).  Well, 
what  do  the  Scriptures  teach  ?  "  The  Scriptures 
teach  that  the  glory  of  God  is  the  end  to  which 
all  other  ends  are  subordinate  "  (i.  p.  435).  Agreed  ; 
and  what  do  we  learn  from  that  ?  Why,  that  '*  we 
are  not  obliged  to  assume  that  this  is  the  best  possi- 
ble world  for  the  production  of  happiness,  or  even 
for  securing  the  greatest  degree  of  holiness  among 
rational  creatures  "  (i.  p.  436).  A  greater  non  sequi- 
tnr  we  never  dreamed  of.  And  yet  this  is  the  only 
argument.  These  are  the  only  Scriptures  that  Dr. 
Hodge  brings  upon  his  page.  *'  Of  Him  and  through 
Him  and  to  Him  are  all  things;"  and,  therefore, 
this  is  not  the  best  possible  universe.  This  is  the 
gist  of  the  proof  that  Dr.  Hodge  brings  out  of  God's 
Holy  Word. 

§  4.  Reason. 

But  out  of  Reason  the  case  is  somewhat  different. 
Here  Dr.  Hodge  has  two  arguments, — one  built 
upon  the  finite,  the  other  built  upon  the  prevalence 
of  sin.  He  charges  the  optimist  with  blasphemy. 
Here,  says  he,  is  a  finite  universe.  It  is  little.  It 
might  be  uttered  at  a  breath.  To  say  that  God  is 
limited,  and  is  at  the  end  of  His  resource,  is  to 
say  that  He  is  not  Omnipotent.  And  again,  to  say 
that  He  is  bound  down  so  that  He  must  submit  to  a 
universe  with  sin,  is  to  say  that  He  could  not  create 
it  differently.  Any  May  morning  He  could  roll 
forth  forty  worlds  freighted  with  higher  happiness, 
and  bv  the  word  of  His  power  He  could  have  kept 


CiiAr.  VI.]        TJiis   Universe  not  the  Best.  1 5 1 

iniquity  out  of  His  sight,  and  banished  it  forever 
from  His  creation  (see  vol.  i.  p.  433  et  alibi'). 

This  seems  unanswerable. 

But  we  can  frame  the  very  opposite  argument. 
Suppose  God  should  want  to  make  a  beltistic  uni- 
verse :  suppose  He  longed  for  it :  suppose  He  bent 
towards  it  with  all  the  ardors  of  the  infinite  :  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Hodge  He  could  not  do  it.  Does  that 
not  limit  His  omnipotence  .'* 

God  is  limited. 

That,  perhaps,  is  the  boldest  way  to  answer  Dr. 
Hodge. 

He  is  limited  forever  and  forever  ;  and  yet  He  is 
still  omnipotent.  And  if  you  ask  me  how,  I  say, — He 
is  limited  by  the  impossible.  He  cannot  make  man 
God.     He  cannot  make  the  universe  Divine. 

Dr.  Hodge  says.  He  can  roll  forth  forty  worlds : 
but  he  can  say  that  to-morrow  and  to-morrow.  He 
can  stand  on  the  verge  of  space,  and  when  the 
universe  is  as  near  infinite  as  he  can  possibly  con- 
ceive, he  can  cry  out — Forty  more,  and,  Forty  more. 
There  is  no  limit  to  this  appeal. 

But  there  is  a  limit  to  the  possibility. 

And  here  precisely  is  our  argument.  The 
universe  is  of  its  very  nature  finite.  This  implies 
an  end.  This  implies  that  God  must  set  it.  Sup- 
pose He  wished  it  the  best  possible.  It  would  cer- 
tainly deny  His  Omnipotence  if  He  could  not  have 
it.  And  yet,  if  He  had  it,  it  must  be  still  finite. 
God  could  ordain  the  boundary  ;  and  one  boundary 
could  be  wise,  and  another  foolish,  and  this  is  all 


152  FeticJi  ill  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

we  declare.  God  has  made  the  best  possible  uni- 
verse ;  and  by  this  we  mean  the  holiest  possible 
and  the  happiest  possible  for  the  vast  creation. 

And  as  to  the  other  argument,  how  singularly  Dr. 
Hodge  contradicts  himself.  He  says,  so  teaching 
we  deny  God's  omnipotence.  God  any  morning 
might  create  a  world  without  the  incubus  of  sin. 
Who  would  ever  dream  that  the  world  gains  by 
sin,  and  that  this  is  a  teaching  of  Dr.  Hodge  .'*  But 
we  have  only  to  listen.  *'  As  sentient  creatures  are 
necessary  for  the  manifestation  of  God's  benevo- 
lence, so  there  could  be  no  manifestation  of  His 
mercy  without  misery,  or  of  His  grace  and  justice 
if  there  were  no  sin.  The  knowledge  of  God  is 
eternal  life.  It  is  for  creatures  the  highest  good. 
Sin,  therefore,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  is  permit- 
ted, that  the  justice  of  God  may  be  known  in  its 
punishment,  and  His  grace  in  its  forgiveness.  And 
the  universe  without  the  knowledge  of  these  attri- 
butes, would  be  like  the  earth  without  the  light  of 
the  sun"  (i.  p.  435).  If  the  universe  is  the  better 
for  sin,  that  does  not  make  it  the  best ;  but  if  the 
universe  is  the  better,  that  makes  sin  to  be  no  bar, 
and  indeed  takes  it  as  a  help,  and  makes  it  lift 
that  much  nearer  our  required  consummation. 

And  yet  Dr.  Hodge  is  so  inconsistent ;  for  though 
he  admits  this,  yet  listen  to  him  again : — **  Sin,  in 
itself,  is  an  evil ;  relatively  it  is  a  good."  (Dr.  Hodge 
is  ridiculing  the  doctrine  of  those,  who,  nevertheless, 
in  moral  consequences  seem  just  where  he  is.) 
''  The  universe  is  better  with  it  than  without  it.     In 


Chap.  VI.]        TJiis   Universe  not  the  Best.  1 5  3 

itself  it  is  an  evil  that  the  smaller  animals  should 
be  devoured  by  the  larger  ;  but  as  this  is  necessary 
to  prevent  the  undue  development  of  animal  life, 
and  as  it  ministers  to  the  higher  forms  thereof,  it 
becomes  a  benevolent  arrangement.  The  ampu- 
tation of  a  limb  is  an  evil ;  but  if  necessary  to  save 
life,  it  is  a  good.  Wars  etc.,  .  .  .  Thus  if  sin  be  the 
necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good,  it  ceases  to 
be  an  evil  on  the  whole,  and  it  is  perfectly  consist- 
ent with  the  benevolence  of  God  to  permit  its  oc- 
currence" (i.  pp.  432,  433), — a  conclusion  here  at 
the  very  climax  of  his  irony  which  seems  in  just  in- 
tent the  same  with  his  own  as  previously  quoted. 

^  5.  A?i  Orthodox  Optimism. 
Holiness  is  the  only  thing  that  can  bring  us 
safe  all  through  this  labyrinth.  Holiness  is  a  love 
of  others  and  a  love  of  the  quality  of  holiness  itself. 
Of  these  the  latter  is  the  more  imperial.  Holiness, 
therefore,  is  the  great  object  of  God  in  all  His 
creation.  He  loves  His  own  holiness  better  than 
that  of  any  of  the  creatures.  But  unless  we  can 
suppose  that  His  own  holiness,  which  is  a  love  of 
others  and  a  love  of  the  principle  of  moral  excel- 
lence, can  interfere  with  the  holiness  of  other  be- 
ings, we  may  easily  infer  that  quoad  the  creature 
God's  highest  object  is  the  holiness  of  all.  Now  if 
God's  highest  object  ad  extra  be  the  holiness  of  all, 
is  it,  or  is  it  not,  gratified  1  Or  if  for  wise  reasons 
He  prefers  the  highest  holiness  of  the  most  to  a 
lower  holiness  of  all,  has  He  or  has  He  not  His 
wish  }     The  demonstration  seems  complete. 


154  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [BookV. 

But  if  the  holiest  possible  universe  results, 
could  that  be  a  less  happy  one  ?  The  inference 
seems  plain,  that  if  God  be  a  holy  God  the  universe 
that  He  has  made  is  the  holiest,  and  on  that  very  ac- 
count the  happiest,  that  could  possibly  come  into 
being. 

1^  6.  The  Opposite^  Fetich. 

We  have  hinted  at  this  already  (see  p.  26). 

But  a  Deity  erected  over  the  universe  without 
a  life  to  the  benefit  of  the  universe,  is  a  grim  idol. 
There  is  an  unnaturalness  in  Him  in  the  very 
thought.  A  mere  shell-like  God  ! — a  Deity  for  the 
mere  sake  of  a  Deity  !  a  sort  oi  semet  ipso  Jehovah  ! 
why,  the  world  is  full  of  such  hybrids.  The  Panthe- 
on was  crowded  with  them.  We  believe  that  Doc- 
trine can  beget  a  monster  as  vile  as  Polytheism. 
For  seethe  different  traits  : — Power; — that  breathed 
from  Olympus  ;  Wrath  ; — that  burned  in  Moloch  ; 
Self-Providence  ; — that  pampered  itself  in  Mammon. 
The  God  not  weaving  out  the  happiest  results  is  the 
Ormuzd  beset  by  His  Ahriman.  All  wears  an 
idolatrous  phase.  All  breaks  into  detail  and  re- 
fuses unity.  The  only  One  God  is  the  God  infinitely 
holy  ;  who,  therefore,  makes  holiness  the  object  in 
all  His  works ;  who,  therefore,  makes  the  sum  of 
creatures  to  the  uttermost  holy  ;  who,  in  so  doing, 
makes  them  to  the  uttermost  happy ;  and  who, 
when  He  has  once  given  them  a  perception  of  this, 
fills  their  lips  with  an  adoration  that  it  is  hard  to 
think  of  as  being  ever  curtailed. 


Chap.  Vn.]         God  the  AiitJior  of  Sin.  155 


CHAPTER   VII. 

god's  providence  not  a  continuous  creation,  else  god 
the  author  of  sin. 

\  I.  Dr.  Hodge's  Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 
The  error,  as  Dr.  Hodge  regards  it,  of  the  theory 
of  a  ''continuous  creation"  he  gives  in  three  forms. 
We  have  not  room  for  all  of  them.  We  give  the 
worst.  If  he  is  mistaken  in  regard  to  that,  a  fortiori 
must  he  be  in  respect  of  the  other  two,  one  of  which 
he  refers  to  the  Reformed  theologians,  and  quotes 
as  holding  it  Heidegger,  Ryssenius  and,  virtually, 
Turrettin  (vol.  i.  p.  577).  Dr.  Hodge  himself  shall 
describe  the  form  we  shall  allude  to  : — "  By  continued 
creation  is  meant  that  all  efficiency  is  in  God  ;  that 
all  effects  are  to  be  referred  to  His  agency.  As 
there  was  no  co-operation  in  calling  the  world  out  of 
nothing,  so  there  is  no  co-operation  of  second  causes 
in  its  continuance  and  operations.  God  creates,  as 
it  were,  de  novo  at  each  instant  the  universe,  as  at 
that  moment  it  actually  is"  (i.  p.  578).  President 
Edwards  has  a  kindred  theory.  Dr.  Hodge  quotes 
him  as  saying  that  "  the  existence  of  created  sub- 
stance in  each  successive  moment  [is]  wholly  the  ef- 
fect of  God's  immediate  power  in  that  moment,  with- 
out any  dependence  on  prior  existence,  as  much  as 
the  first  cre^ion  out  of  nothing"  (vol.  ii.  p.  217). 

Dr.  Hodge  argues  against  all  this,  that  it  de- 
stroys, first,  "  All  continuity  of  existence  ;  "  second, 
"  all  evidence  of  the  existence  of  an  external  world  ; " 


156  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

third,  "  second  causes  ;  "  that,  fourth,  it  is  like  Pan- 
theism ;  and,  fifth,  that  it  makes  God  the  author  of 
sin. 

It  is  very  clear  that  that  fifth  difficulty  is  the 
awakening  one  with  Dr.  Hodge. 

This  appears  from  his  self-contradictions  : — 

§  2.  Dr.  Hodge's  Contradictions. 

He  is  not  sufficiently  impressed  with  the  philo- 
sophical objections  in  the  case  to  rest  under  their 
consistent  influence.  Dr.  Hodge  is  ruled  by  his 
theology.  Imputation  coming  afterwards  to  be  ad- 
vanced, and  to  be  advanced  in  a  rigid  form  of  it,  he 
comes  himself  to  need  a  form  of  divine  creationism, 
and  he  seizes  it  without  a  scruple.  For  example,  a 
bean-stalk  growing  in  the  night  he  makes  the  direct 
work  of  the  Almighty.  A  stalagmite  growing  in  a 
cave  ;  that  is  nature.  God  only  supports  it.  The 
shooting  of  a  crystal  or  the  drawing  of  a  magnet : 
that  all  springs  from  natural  cause.  To  say  that 
God  creates  all  this  each  moment  would  be  Panthe- 
ism. But  to  say,  that  He  creates  life  each  moment, 
and  that  all  that  breathes  lives  by  His  immediate 
efficacy,  there  he  finds  no  check.  He  catches  sight 
of  a  bearing,  not  only  upon  the  creation  of  our 
spirits,  but  upon  certain  infidel  schemes,  and  it 
warps  his  thought.  Life  iS  God's  work  each  mo- 
ment. **  Life  is  not  the  product  of  physical  causes. 
We  know  not  that  its  origin  is  in  any  case  due  to 
any  cause  other  than  the  immediate  power  of  God  " 
(vol.  ii.  p.  74  ;  see  also  vol.  i.  p.  612).  That  is,  a  crys- 


CiTAi'.  VII.]        God  the  Author  of  Si;i.  157 

tal  is  not  created  each  moment,  because  that  de- 
stroys second  causes  (i.  p.  579)  ;  but  hfe  is  created 
each  moment,  and  by  an  immediate  "  divine  efficien- 
cy "  (ii.  p.  74),  the  only  difference  that  we  can  see 
being,  that  the  first  is  needed  to  keep  God  from 
being  the  Author  of  sin,  and  the  last  to  keep  the 
sinner  from  being  traduced  from  Adam  (see  i.  p. 
70). 

A  stranger  discrepance  occurs  as  between  two 
other  tenets.  '^  Contiiuious  creation''' m  one  form 
of  it  calls  for  the  remembrance  of  the  fact  that  God 
is  eternal,  and  that  His  acts,  therefore,  are  not  suc- 
cessive. Dr.  Hodge  very  properly  challenges  this. 
''  As  to  the  idea  that  God's  acts  are  not  successive  ; 
that  He  never  does  in  time  what  He  does  not  do 
from  eternity,  it  is  obvious  that  such  language  has 
for  us  no  meaning.  We  know  that  God  acts  ;  that 
He  does  produce  successive  effects  ;  and  that  so  far 
as  we  are  concerned,  and  so  far  as  the  representa- 
tions of  Scripture  are  concerned,  our  relation  to  God 
and  the  relation  of  the  world  to  Him,  are  precisely 
what  they  would  be  if  His  acts  were  really  success- 
ive" (i.  p.  578).  And  yet  Edwards'  theory, — a 
much  better  theory, — comes  to  be  discussed,  and 
Dr.  Hodge  uses  this  language  : — ''  It  proceeds  upon 
the  assumption  that  we  can  understand  the  relation 
of  the  efficiency  of  God  to  the  effects  produced  in 
time.  Because  every  new  effect  which  we  produce 
is  due  to  a  new  exercise  of  our  efficiency,  it  is  as- 
sumed that  such  must  be  the  case  with  God.  He, 
however,  inhabits  eternity.     With  Him  there  is  no 


158  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [BookV. 

distinction  between  the  past  and  future.  All  things 
are  equally  present  to  Him.  It  is  surely  just  as 
conceivable  or  intelligible  that  God  should  will  the 
continuous  existence  of  the  things  which  He  creates, 
as  that  He  should  create  them  anew  at  every  suc- 
cessive moment"  (ii.  p.  219). 

Our  misgiving  is,  that  Dr.  Hodge  charges  him- 
self more  about  the  argument  as  to  sin  than  as  to 
any  philosophic  difficulties.  Perhaps  that  is  praise- 
worthy. But  it  only  makes  it  more  imperative  that 
this  delicate  defence  of  God  should  not  on  that  very 
account,  and  because  of  its  look  of  partiality,  in  its 
effect  impeach  and  betray  Him  {see  Coviuientaiy  on 
Proverbs,  pp.  401,  402).     Because — 

§  3.  Argument  from  Reason. 

Dr.  Hodge  has  involved  beforehand  the  charac- 
ter of  God.  He  has  said, — Unless  a  certain  phil- 
osophical theory  can  be  maintained,  God  is  the 
Author  of  sin.  That  theory  is,  that  God  directs  and 
sustains  but  does  not  continuously  create  His  finite 
creatures.  His  philosophical  arguments  are  of 
necessity  false  :  I  mean  by  that,  one  theory  claims 
all  the  facts  like  the  other.  When  Dr.  Hodge  says, 
that  one  theory  destroys  identity,  or,  as  he  expresses 
it,  "continued  existence,"  he  only  means  the  truism, 
that  identity  under  the  one  theory  is  not  the  same 
as  identity  under  the  other.  So  of  ''  second  causes." 
The  argument  is  nothing.  Both  theories  use  the 
same  language.  Both  theories  proclaim  the, same 
facts.  A  cause  when  existing  in  the  creature  is 
certainly  different  from  a  cause  found  in  the  Creator, 


CiiAr.  YIL]  God  tJic  Aiit/ior  of  Sin.  159 


and  has  but  the  faintest  resemblance  in  answerinc: 
to  the  word  ;  and  yet  where  does  Dr.  Hodge  notice 
that  fact  ?  Being  !  What  is  being  ?  Being,  when 
it  is  Divine,  and  being,  when  it  is  the  work  of  the 
Almighty  !  does  there  appear  no  difference  ?  And, 
therefore,  what  is  all  this  reasoning  worth  ?  The 
being  of  God  is  different  from  the  being  of  man  ; 
now,  who  shall  say,  how  different  ?  They  might  be 
called  by  different  names.  Being  is  but  a  word  in 
the  dark  ;  and  all  men  must  say  that  it  is  real  chief- 
ly in  the  Almighty.  And  now,  what  our  being 
means,  and  what  our  effecting  anything  means,  are 
precisely  what  these  theories  we  are  discussing  shall 
enable  us  to  determine. 

How  idle  to  declare  that  either  theory  destroys 
this  or  that.  Either  theory  destroys  the  other. 
Neither  theory  destroys  identity,  or  continued  exis- 
tence, or  secondary  causes.  It  only  affects  their 
shape.  As  long  as  a  continued-creationist  speaks  of 
personal  identity,  and  compares  it  to  light  upon  a  por- 
trait (see  Edwards,  vol.  ii.  p.  555);  as  long  as  he 
maintains  causation,  and  expounds  it ;  as  long  as  he 
insists  upon  existence,  but  only  makes  it  different 
from  God's, — how  futile  to  say  that  he  destroys 
them,  particularly  as  all  alike  declare  that  in  these 
things  we  are  very  different  from  the  Almighty. 

Dr.  Hodge  is  thrown  simply  upon  his  ethical 
conceit. 

When  in  old  temperance  days  leading  divines 
declared  that  if  Jesus  of  Nazareth  created  intoxica- 
he  was  a  brutal  impostor,  all  temperate 


l6o  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

thinkers  stood  aghast.  Ought  we  not  to  risk  less  in 
our  theological  assaults?  Dr.  Hodge  has  let  slip 
the  arrow  that  God  is  the  Author  of  sin.  It  is  true 
that  he  is  aiming  at  some  other  God,  but  men  of 
equal  prayer  think  that  he  is  aiming  directly  at  their 
Deity.  Was  it  distinctly  prudent  to  shoot  it }  Now 
that  the  philosophic  reasons  seem  of  little  force,  let 
us  see  to  what  narrow  ground  he  is  confined  for  his 
vindication. 

He  teaches  (vol.  ii.  p.  70)  that  the  soul  of  an 
infant  is  immediately  created  by  the  Almighty.  The 
body  which  is  derived  from  Adam  can  have  no  fault, 
and  cannot  carry  blame  or  wickedness.  What  is 
the  result,  therefore }  The  result  is  that  God  cre- 
ates a  poor  infant  wicked.  Why  does  He  do  it } 
Because  Adam  was  wicked.  When  did  Adam  live  '^. 
Six  thousand  years  ago.  Why  does  He  make  the 
infant  wicked  .'*  Because  of  a  federal  covenant.  Is 
God  unjust  in  this  1  No  :  it  is  impressed  in  the 
creation  ;  all  nature  wears  its  analogies.  Dr.  Hodge 
in  expounding  this  tells  only  the  truth,  and  all  ortho- 
dox men  will  look  upon  it  with  pleasure. 

But  now  see  the  difference.  God  creates  every 
soul  directly.  He  only  hath  immortality.  He  gives 
being  every  moment.  He  not  only  creates  the  child, 
and  curses  him  for  Adam,  but  He  creates  the  man, 
and  curses  him  for  himself;  where  will  you  distin- 
guish }  Dr.  Hodge  not  only  does  not  think  that 
God  is  the  Author  of  sin  because  He  creates  what 
is  wicked,  but  he  does  not  think  it  even  hard  that  He 
creates  a  lost  thing  de  novo  for  a  trespass  six  thou- 


Chap.  VII.]         God  the  Author  of  Si//.  l6l 

sand  years  ago.  And  yet  if  I  teach  that  there  is  a 
continuous  creation,  and  like  the  Hght  perpetually 
on  the  moon  there  is  an  immanence  of  God's  power 
that  keeps  the  child,  and  gives  him  a  continual 
creation  ;  if  I  say,  he  cannot  have  self-being,  but  he 
can  have  being,  and  it  can  be  kept  in  him  de  novo 
and  all  the  time,  Dr.  Hodge,  who  has  been  tolerant 
of  the  federal  curse,  closes  upon  me  at  once  ;  utters 
certain  philosophic  challenges  which  we  might  easily 
bear,  but  tramples  upon  me  most  for  my  impugn- 
ment of  the  Almighty. 

Now  is  this  prudent } 

Take  any  plain  man  and  say.  Here  is  a  child 
flashed  into  being  de  novo  and  with  no  paternity  for 
his  spirit ;  here  is  a  man  flashed  into  being  contin- 
uously as  the  only  way  in  which  he  can  have  an 
existence  ;  the  child  is  created  wicked,  and  the  man 
is  created  wicked  ;  the  child  for  sin  on  the  part  of 
Adam,  and  the  man  for  his  own  sin,  that  is,  for  dis- 
tinctly remembered  iniquity;  —  now  our  auditor 
might  smile  at  both,  and  ridicule  one  point  and 
another ; — but  suppose  I  were  to  say,  there  is  a 
writer  who  denounces  this  last,  and  says  it  makes 
God  the  Author  of  sin,  but  he  defends  the  former, 
and  says  it  is  all  just  and  right, — how  would  the 
peasant  man  break  out  ! 

And  it  is  unfortunate  all  through;  because, first, 
it  settles  things  by  philosophy ! 

Hear  Dr.  Hodge  himself ! — 

"  It  is  obviously  most  unreasonable  and  pre- 
sumptuous, as  well  as  dangerous,  to  make  a  theory 


1 62  FeticJi  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

as  to  the  origin  "  [suppose  we  say,  continnance\  "  of 
the  soul  the  ground  of  a  doctrine  so  fundamental  to 
the  Christian  system  as  that  of  original "  [suppose 
we  say,  the  atUJi07'sJiip  of]  '*sin.  Yet  we  see  theo- 
logians, ancient  and  modern,  boldly  asserting  that  if 
their  doctrine  of  derivation,  and  the  consequent 
numerical  sameness  of  substance  in  all  men,  be  not 
admitted,  then  original  sin  is  impossible."  **  This 
is  done  even  by  those  who  protest  against  intro- 
ducing philosophy  into  theology,  utterly  unconscious, 
as  it  would  seem,  that  they  themselves  occupy,  quoad 
hoc,  the  same  ground  with  the  rationalists.  They 
will  not  believe  in  hereditary  depravity  unless  they 
can  explain  the  mode  of  its  transmission."  [Let  me 
alter  that, — '  They  will  not  believe  in  responsibility 
for  sin  unless  they  can  explain  the  continuance  of 
being.']  ''There  can  be  no  such  thing,  they  say,  as 
her€ditary  depravity  unless  the  soul  of  the  child  is 
the  same  numerical  substance  as  the  soul  of  the 
parent."  [Alias — 'God  Himself  must  be  responsible 
for  sin  or  else  the  soul  of  the  sinner  must  have  my 
special  theory  for  its  continuance  in  being.']  "  No 
man  has  a  right  to  hang  the  millstone  of  his  philoso- 
phy around  the  neck  of  the  truth  of  God  "  (voP!  ii. 
p.  73).     So  much  for  our  first  point. 

But,  secondly,  it  is  not  only  a  philosophy,  but 
one  of  a  most  precai'ioiis  kind.  See  what  it  has  to 
establish.  God  may  ordain,  and  then  He  is  all  right. 
He  may  create.  He  may  have  a  universal  system 
of  Providence.  He  may  carry  this  so  far  that  He 
must  uphold  and  appear  and  concur  in  all  existences. 


Cmu'.  yiL]         God  the  AutJior  of  Sin.  163 

Job  cries,  "■  Look  away  from  him  that  he  may  cease" 
(Job  xiv.  6).  All  this  is  agreed  in.  God  mast  flow-in 
with  His  power  into  every  creation,  and  do  it  with 
unslumbering  constancy,  or  that  creature  vanishes. 
Dr.  Hodge  is  all  clear  that  far,  and  there  is  not  a 
breath  upon  the  wave.  But  now,  one  hand-breadth 
further : — God  must  continuously  create.  As  all 
life  according  to  Dr.  Hodge  is  by  His  direct  effi- 
ciency (ii.  p.  74),  so  all  being  is.  He  cannot  relegate 
it.  It  must  keep  flowing.  It  must  be  immanent 
forever.  We  say  this,  and  we  are  gone  !  This  that 
has  scarce  one  point  of  advance  ;  that  has  no  true 
moral  difference  ;  which  can  hardly  be  distinguished 
by  Dr.  Hodge  if  he  keeps  cause  separate  from 
Cause,  and  being  separate  from  the  Great  Being ; 
this,  which  seems  consistent  with  Bible  speech,  for 
He  forms  the  light  and  creates  darkness  ;  He 
makes  peace  and  creates  evil  (Is.  xlv.  7)  ;  *'  By  Him 
all  things  consist"  (Col.  i.  17)  ;  We  live  in  Him 
and  move  in  Him  and  have  our  Being  (Acts  xvii.  28); 
He  has  "  power  over  the  clay  to  make  one  vessel 
untohonor  and  another  unto  dishonor"  (Rom.  ix.  21); 
He  hath  made  "even  the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil" 
(Prov.  xvi.  4)  ;  this  theory,  which,  to  say  the  very 
most,  gives  God  authority  and  control  and  power 
and  foreordination  no  particle  more  than  the  other, 
is  to  be  its  practical  antipodes  as  to  making  God 
responsible  for  our  iniquity. 

No  plain  man  can  see  it. 

And  now  we  come  to  a  graver  idea : — 


164  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [BookV. 

<^  4.   The  Doctrine^  Fetich. 

Mark  one  fact  about  Dr.  Hodge, — He  is  making 
a  refuge  for  God  behind  brute  substance. 

His  apology  for  God  is  not  only  (i)  a  philosoph- 
ical one,  and  not  only  (2)  a  tenuous  philosophical 
one,  but  it  is  (3)  a  resort,  in  a  purely  ethical  ques- 
tion, to  a  sort  of  tcrtiuin  brtLtiLni  of  existence.  No 
one  denies  that  matter  exists.  No  one  supposes 
but  that  God  creates  it.  No  one  is  making  a  diffi- 
culty of  His  entirely  controlling  it.  And,  therefore, 
when  God  is  all  open  in  every  form  to  an  entire 
association  with  His  works,  Dr.  Hodge  would  at- 
tempt to  defend  Him  by  the  veil  of  some  separate 
substance. 

We  beg  a  glance  at  this. 

Men  have  worshipped  substance  when  they  have 
ascribed  to  it  Divine  traits.  But  men  have  wor- 
shipped substance  equally,  and  perhaps  more  fatally, 
when  they  have  ascribed  to  it  infamous  traits,  and 
professed  thereby  to  defend  the  Deity.  The  Per- 
sians did  all  this  when  they  invented  Ahriman  as  an 
excuse  for  Ormuzd.  So  did  the  Platonists.  Those 
old  theories  by  which  matter  was  made  to  be  eter- 
nal, and  became  the  scape-goat  as  the  origin  of  evil, 
were  but  the  instances  of  the  abandonment  of  God. 
The  Deity  does  not  ask  such  defence.  It  has  the 
effect  of  an  excuse  for  wickedness.  Men  see  the 
hollowness  of  it.  God  all  for  Himself  tempts  men 
because  that  is  not  what  they  admire.  And  God 
argued  for  in  these  ways  is  a  terrible  snare  to  them, 
because  they  see  that  there  is  no  difference  (I  mean 


Chap.  VIII.]     Hclplcssiicss  not  Disinclination.  165 

in  foro  morale)  between  a  God  so  sustaining  that  a 
thing  would  vanish  if  He  looked  away  (Job  xiv.  6), 
and  a  God  continually  at  work,  to  pour-in  the  being 
which  He  has  started  in  His  creature. 

If  that  is  an  idol  which  the  Hindoos  began  with 
as  God's  work  and  ended  with  as — God,  that  is  an 
idol  too,  which  Dr.  Hodge  realizes  as  sustained  by 
the  Almighty,  but  uses  as  His  defence  at  last  to  ex- 
cuse Him  from  being  responsible  for  evil. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

man's  helplessness  not  disinclination. 

^  I.  Dr.  Hodge's  Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 

"■  The  inability  of  sinners  is  not  mere  disinclina- 
tion or  aversion  to  what  is  good.  This  disinclination 
exists,  but  it  is  not  the  ultimate  fact.  There  must 
be  some  cause  or  reason  for  it.  As  God  and  Christ 
are  infinitely  lovely,  the  fact  that  sinners  do  not  love 
them,  is  not  accounted  for  by  saying  that  they  are 
not  inclined  to  delight  in  infinite  excellence.  That 
is  only  stating  the  same  thing  in  different  words. 
If  a  man  does  not  perceive  the  beauty  of  a  work  of 
art,  or  of  a  literary  production,  it  is  no  solution  of 
the  fact  to  say  that  he  has  no  inclination  for  such 
forms  of  beauty.  Why  is  it  that  what  is  beautiful  in 
itself,  and  in  the  judgment  of  all  competent  judges, 
is  without  form  or  comeliness  in  his  eyes  1  Why  is 
it  that  the  supreme  excellence  of  God,  and  all  that 
makes  Christ  the  chief  among  ten  thousand  and  the 
one  altogether  lovely  in  the  sight  of  men  and  angels, 


1 66  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

awaken  no  corresponding  feelings  in  the  unregene- 
rate  heart?  The  inability  of  the  sinner,  therefore, 
neither  consists  in  his  disinclination  to  good,  nor 
does  it  arise  exclusively  from  that  source  "  (ii.  p. 
261). 

§  2.  Dr.  Hodge's  Immediate  Contradictions. 

I.  The  seeds  of  self-rectification  are  found  in 
these  very  sentences  themselves.  Our  position  is 
that  helplessness  is  disinclination.  Dr.  Hodge's  is 
that  helplessness  is  not  disinclination.  If  I  could 
induce  an  arguer  to  say  that  my  position  was  not 
true  and  rest  there,  I  should  have  gained  a  great 
victory.  What  I  dread  is  that  he  should  go  on  and 
prove  it.  But  if  after  saying  that  it  was  not  true, 
he  should  lose  his  mind  for  a  moment  and  say  it  was 
a  truism,  I  should  more  than  conquer.  My  forces 
would  have  gained  the  field  without  the  peril  of  a 
victory. 

"This  disinclination  exists,"  says  Dr.  Hodge, 
** but  it  is  not  the  ultimate  fact"  (ii.  p.  261);  and 
yet  that  it  exists  and  is  the  ultimate  fact  is  the 
very  theory  that  is  asking  for  refutation.  Dr. 
Hodge  brings  the  opposite  in  view  as  though  it 
shone  by  its  own  light.  But  before  we  can  set  it 
up,  and  plead  against  it,  he  bowls  it  down  himself, 
for  he  remorselessly  declares  that  what  opposes  it  is 
a  naked  truism. 

Let  us  not  confuse  ourselves  by  this  queer  be- 
ginning. 

Either  or  either  not  helplessness  is  disinclina- 
tion.    If  it  is,  how  stands  the  plea  that  it  is  not  the 


CiiAP.  VIIL]  Helplessness  not  Disinelination.  167 

ultimate   fact  ?  and  if  it   is  not,  how  odd  the  argu- 
ment that  it  is  a  naked  truism ! 

Let  us  beg  a  thorough  examination.  "  Disincli- 
nation is  not  the  ultimate  fact"  (p.  261).  This 
speech  stands  unsupported.  Again,  ''  There  must 
be  some  cause  or  reason  for  it."  ''  Reason  "  of  a 
historic  kind,  or  ''  cause  "  or  history  why  man  came 
into  his  fallen  state,  that  obviously  we  are  not  con- 
sidering. The  "  cause  "  intended  must  be  a  psycho- 
logic cause.  The  ''  reason  "  must  be  like  faith  as 
Dr.  Hodge  defines  it  (iii.  p.  41),  as  the  **  cause  " 
or  ''reason  "  of  spiritual  repentance.  It  is  one  state 
gendering,  or  being  origin  to,  the  existence  of  an- 
other. And  as  we  mean  to  deny  that  helplessness 
is  the  occasion  of  disinclination,  to  say  that  the 
latter  is  "not  the  ultimate  fact"(ii.  p.  261)  is  the 
sheerest  form  of  a  petitio  principii : — because,  there 
is  the  very  question.  But  when  we  are  led  farther, 
and  told  that  the  fact  that  it  is  is  a  naked  truism,  we 
stare  with  astonishment.  Two  and  two  are  not 
four,  and,  moreover,  the  assertion  that  they  are  is 
all  a  truism.  We  can  stand  such  attacks.  Do  not 
think  we  are  misrepresenting  anything,  for  observe 
the  language  (p.  261): — "Disinclination  exists, 
but  it  is  not  the  ultimate  fact.  .  .  .  The  fact  that 
sinners  do  not  love  God  and  Christ  is  not  accounted 
for  by  saying  that  they  are  not  inclined  to  delight  in 
infinite  excellence.     That  is  only  stating  the  same 

thing    in    different    words The   proposition 

that  a  man  can  love  God   if  he   will  ....  if  the 
word  [will]  be  taken  in  a  wide  sense  as  includmg 


1 6S  FcticJi  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

the  affections,  is  a  truism  "  (ii.  p.  266).  This  feels 
like  milder  rhetoric  than  O'Connell  heaped  upon  the 
fish-woman  ;  for  though  he  called  her  a  "  hypothe- 
neuse,"  and  a  ''  mere  parallelogram,"  yet,  as  far  as 
could  be  seen,  these  epithets  could  neither  hurt  nor 
help  ;  but  truisms  ^re  comfortable  helps,  and  in 
these  earlier  stages  at  least,  are  a  good  thing  to  put 
in  one's  first  foundation. 

II.  A  second  mistake  of  Dr.  Hodge  is  a  sudden 
transference  of  inclination  into  volition.  Who 
agreed  to  that  t  I  would  not  like  after  that  to  at- 
tempt any  debate.  If  I  say,  I  am  helpless  to  eat 
apples,  and  then  go  on  to  explain  that  my  helpless- 
ness consists  in  disinclination,  the  man  who  holds 
that  this  is  *'not  the  ultimate  fact"  because  I  can- 
not will  to  change  my  appetite,  and  therefore  there 
must  be  something  back  of  disinclination,  is  chang- 
ing under  the  very  eye  of  day  inclination  into  will. 

Dr.  Hodge  does  it. 

''  If  the  word  ivill  be  here  taken  in  its  ordinary 
sense  for  the  power  of  self-determination,  the  prop- 
osition that  a  man  can  love  God  if  he  will  is  not 
true,  for  it  is  notorious  that  the  affections  are  not 
under  the  power  of  the  will.  If  the  word  be  taken 
in  a  wide  sense  as  including  the  affections,  the 
proposition  is  a  truism  "  (p.  266). 

No  one  ever  held  that  a  man  can  change  hate 
into  love  by  an  act  of  the  will. 

But  though  Dr.  Hodge  cannot  prove  that  help- 
lessness is  not  disinclination  by  showing  that  a  man 
cannot  will  to  love  God,  we  can  prove  that  it  is  dis- 


Chap.  VIIL]  Helplessness  not  Disinclination.         169 

inclination  by  showing  certain  bearings  of  will  of  a 
secondary  and  instrumental  kind. 
What  is  will  ? 

All  will  is  inclination ;  but  all  inclination  is  not 
specifically  will. 

I  cannot  will  to  love  God.  Why  ?  Because  the 
will  does  not  do  such  things.  It  moves  the  muscles, 
and  it  is  concerned  in  the  act  of  attention.  The 
only  way  I  can  love  is  to  love.  It  is  as  Dr.  Hodge 
would  deny,  an  ultimate  facl  To  will  to  love 
would  be  about  like  digesting  tunes,  or  listening  to 
a  poison.  Yet  though  unwarrantably  brought  into 
the  debate  when  no  man  fathers  it,  and  no  notice 
has  been  given  of  its  taking  the  place  of  inclination, 
yet  now  that  it  has  been  brought  in,  we  have  a  use 
for  it,  and  a  very  welcome  light  which  we  derive 
from  that  very  confusion  that  has  sprung  up  in  Dr. 
Hodge's  mind. 

We  cannot  will  to  love  God,  and  our  only  way  to 
love  Him  is  to  love  Him,  and  our  helplessness  to 
love  Him  is  that  very  want  of  love,  or  as  Dr.  Hodge 
denounces  it,  the  very  fact  of  our  disinclination. 

But  though  we  cannot  will  to  love  God,  we  may, 
for  shortness  of  speech,  speak  of  that  very  thing. 

There  are  two  ways  of  accomplishing  His  love, 
one  to  do  it  at  once,  which  we  cannot  unless  we  love 
Him  ;  the  other  to  use  the  means. 

Now  that  man's  helplessness  consists  in  disincli- 
nation appears,  most    patently  of   all,  in  this,  that 
he  cannot  even  use  the  means.     He  can  if  he  will. 
But  there  is  the  gnomon  to  the  whole.     I  cannot 
8 


I/O  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

love  God  without  the  use  of  means.  Why?  Smi- 
ply  because  I  do  not  love  Him,  or  in  other  language, 
because  I  am  disinclined.  Again,  I  cannot  love 
God  through  the  use  of  means.  Why  }  Simply 
because  I  will  not  use  them.  My  helplessness  is 
total.  My  love  itself,  that  is  a  thing  utterly  and 
profoundly  dead ;  and  my  steps  to  get  it,  they  are 
on  that  very  account  nil.  All  will  is  inclination, 
and  if  my  inclination  is  entirely  the  other  way,  I  am 
utterly  unable  to  use  the  means  to  secure  a  love 
for  my  Creator. 

III.  Now,  strangest  of  all,  Dr.  Hodge  is  not 
orthodox  when  it  comes  to  this.  Building  his 
thought  on  the  idea  that  I  can  do  certain  things  if 
I  will ;  remembering  the  stringency  of  his  speech, 
that  man's  helplessness  is  not  disinclination  ;  cut 
off  from  our  explanation  of  the  fact  that  I  cannot 
use  even  the  means  of  grace, — he  shocks  us  sud- 
denly by  abandoning  that  asseveration. 

The  sinner  "can  be  kind  and  just  ....  and 
[has  an]  inability  [that  can  be]  asserted  [only  of] 
the  things  of  the  Spirit"  (vol.  ii.  p.  263).  Again,  in 
respect  to  the  use  of  means,  read  all  on  pages  276 
ana  277.  ''When  a  man  is  convinced  that  the  at- 
tainment of  a  desirable  end  is  beyond  the  compass 
of  his  own  powers,  he  instinctively  seeks  help  out 
of  himself.  If  ill  ,  .  .  he  sends  for  a  physician.  If 
persuaded  that  the  disease  is,  entirely  under  his  own 
control,  and,  especially,  if  any  metaphysician  could 
persuade  him  that  all  illness  is  an  idea,  which  can 
be  banished  by  a  volition  "  [I  know  of  no  mortal  of 


Chap.  VIII.]    Helplessness  not  Disinclination.         1 7 1 

whom  that  illustrates  the  creed],  '*  then  it  would  be 
folly  in  him  to  seek  aid  from  abroad.  The  blind, 
the  deaf,  the  leprous  and  the  maimed,  who  were  on 
earth  when  Christ  was  present  in  the  flesh,  knew 
that  they  could  not  heal  themselves,  and,  therefore, 
they  went  to  Him  for  help  "  (p.  277). 

Now  we  believe  that  they  could  not  go  ''  to  Him 
for  help." 

Our  notion  is  of  a  total  helplessness. 

We  believe  that  they  cannot  stand  in  the  tower; 
and  that  far  the  reason  is  simply  that  they  do  not 
stand  there.  But  we  believe  further  that  they  can- 
not climb,  even  though  there  be  a  stair,  and  cannot 
shout,  even  though  there  be  help  ;  nay,  that  they  can- 
not even  look  that  way.  They  can  as  possibly  leap 
into  the  very  top  as  lift  a  finger  to  get  there  ;  but 
all  because  of  a  disinclination. 

See,  like  an  old  machine  !  a  pivot  has  cut  too  far 
one  way, — as,  that  being  helpless  is  not  being  dis- 
inclined,—and  presently  it  has  cut  too  far  the  other 
way,  and  being  helpless  is  not  being  helpless  in 
every  conceivable  particular  at  all.  A  machine  too 
tight,  works  logically  into  being  far  too  loose.  Ours 
is  a  perfect  helplessness.  But  we  began  it  in  the 
beginning  as  the  aversation  of  the  soul,  and  so  we 
hold  it  to  the  end  as  a  not  thinking  well,  or  a  not  be- 
ing inclined,  to  use  the  means  for  its  own  salvation. 

^  3.  Scripture. 
It  proves  nothing   to  show  that  the  soul  is  en- 
tirely  helpless.     Dr.   Hodge's    Scripture  (vol.  ii.  p. 


1/2  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

268)  is  all  of  that  class.  We  hold  a  more  total 
helplessness  than  is  maintained  by  Dr.  Hodge. 
That  *'the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself;"  that 
"  without  [Christ,  we]  can  do  nothing  "  (John  xv.  4, 
5)  ;  that  **  our  sufficiency  is  of  God"  (2  Cor.  iii.  5)  ; 
that  ''  no  man  can  come  to  [Christ]  except  the 
Father  draw  him"  (John  vi.  44);  that  we  are  "not 
subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be  ;  so 
then  [that]  they  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please 
God"  (Rom.  viii.  7), — ought  to  have  been  quoted 
by  Dr.  Hodge  first,  to  show  the  doctrine  of  our 
helplessness,  and  then,  after  having  made  sure  of 
that,  it  must  be  a  different  list  that  can  show  that 
helplessness  is  not  disinclination. 

Let  us  quote  some  on  our  side  of  the  question. 
"Ye  will  not  come  to  me  that  ye  might  have  life" 
(John  V.  40).  David  says,  "  God  shall  wound  the 
head  only  of  His  enemies  "  (Ps.  Ixviii.  21  ;  for  "only" 
see  Hebreiv)  ;  and  again,  "  Only  the  rebellious 
dwell  in  a  dry  land  "  (Ps.  Ixviii.  6).  Ezekiel  implies 
that  it  is  all  within  our  own  governance, — "  Why  will 
ye  die  1  "  (Jer.  xxvii.  13  ;  Ezek.  xviii.  31  ;  xxxiii.  ii). 
"  How  often  would  I  have  gathered,  etc.,  etc.,  but  ye 
would  not"  (Matt,  xxiii.  37).  "  Even  as  they  did  not 
like  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge"  (Rom.  i.  28). 

Dr.  Hodge's  great  text  will  introduce  us  finely 
to  the  next  section. 

§  4.  Argument fro7?i  Reasoii. 

Dr.  Hodge's  great  text  is,  "  The  natural  man 
receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  for 
they  are  foolishness  unto  him  ;  neither  can  he  know 


Chap.  VIII.]    Helplessness  not  Disinclination.         173 

them  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned"  (i  Cor. 
ii.  14). 

First ;  as  to  the  text.  It  describes  the  very  kernel 
of  our  helplessness.  We  are  helpless  because  we 
are  dark.  But  now  let  us  be  careful.  What  does 
that  demonstrate  }  It  demonstrates,  beyond  a 
doubt,  that  the  natural  man  cannot  see ;  but  does  it 
demonstrate — I  mean  by  this  text  alone — that  there- 
anent,  or  rather  as  therein  contained,  it  is  not  also 
true  that  he  cannot  feel  }  If  I  saw  a  whale  in  a 
certain  sea,  does  it  forbid  that  I  also  saw  a  porpoise  .'* 
Or,  coming  a  great  deal  nearer,  if  I  saw  a  beauty 
in  a  certain  picture,  is  it  more  or  otherwise  than 
that  I  simply  felt  a  beauty  t 

Dr.  Hodge  has  switched  off  his  rail-train  pre- 
cisely at  this  cut  across  the  mountain. 

I  see  first  ;  I  feel  afterward.  That  is  his  im- 
agination. 

Then  if  I  see  first  and  then  feel,  of  course  I  am 
helpless  to  feel  until  I  can  see. 

And  then,  as  my  seeing  first  depends  upon  the 
Almighty,  my  helplessness  does  not  consist  in  dis- 
inclination, but  in  a  want  of  seeing. 

Suspicion  gathers  at  once.  Dr.  Hodge  says, 
**  No  man  can  see  the  beauty  of  a  work  of  art  with- 
out aesthetic  discernment "  (vol.  ii.  p.  269).  Put 
that  a  little  differently  : — *  No  one  can  detect  water 
without  aqueous  intelligence.'  What  does  that 
mean  }  Again,  "  No  man  can  see  the  beauty  of  spir- 
itual things  without  spiritual  discernment "  (p.  269). 

But,   now   to    go  back ;  we    are  shown  beyond 


174  FeticJi  in  Doctnne.  [Book  V. 

doubt  that  the  sinner's  trouble  is  a  want  of  vision. 
Moreover,  that  is  his  helplessness.  Sinners  cannot 
be  saints  without  seeing,  and  seeing  cannot  be  had 
without  the  influences  of  God's  Holy  Spirit.  Un- 
questionably he  is  right  in  this,  and,  one  might 
think,  right  in  his  whole  argument.  But  those  sen- 
tences so  truth-resembling  above,  are  the  pointers  to 
the  unobserved  delusion. 

Vision  is  helplessness  ;  but  what  is  vision  } 

Vision  is  the  gift  of  God's  Holy  Spirit.  Vision 
is  a  new  life.  It  is  total  grace  ;  and  the  whole  of 
piety.  Give  a  man  a  ray  and  it  saves  him,  for  ''this 
is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee  the  only 
true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hath  sent" 
(John  xvii.  3). 

But  before  I  can  go  further  and  say, — A  want 
of  vision  being  our  helplessness,  and  a  want  of  love 
not  being  a  want  of  vision,  a  want  of  vision  must 
precede  a  want  of  love,  and  the  whole  region  of  af- 
fection is  not  the  region  of  our  helplessness,  we 
must  look  first  at  a  non  sequitur  in  this  proof, 
which  has  surreptitiously  clambered  in. 

Who  says  that  want  of  love  is  not  a  want  of 
vision  } 

This  fancy  has  been  a  Trojan  horse. 

"  Rather  "  (says  Dr.  Jackson,  of  Corpus  Christi 
College,  Oxford),  "  this  erroneous  imagination  of 
such  a  distinction  between  these  faculties"  ["of 
will  and  understanding"]  "hath  plunged  the  main- 
tainers  of  it  in  such  soul-inextricable  errors,  and 
driven    them  to    such    miserable    endless    shifts  in 


Chap  VIII.]    Helplessness  not  Disinclination.         175 

matters  moral  and  theological  of  greater  conse- 
quence, as  every  intelligent  man  should  abhor"  (Jus- 
tifying Faith,  163 1,  p.  49). 

So  let  us  look  now  to  a  regular  argument.  We 
do  not  deny  that  being  dark  is  the  very  essence  of 
being  helpless ;  but  we  do  deny  that  being  dark 
is  not  also  the  essence  of  being  unloving.  Having 
no  inclination  to  love  God,  and  having  no  illumina- 
tion to  see  Him,  are  not,  as  concerns  the  genesis  of 
both,  the  consequences  the  one  of  the  other,  but  are 
the  same  individual  condition,  distinguishable  as 
aspects  of  the  fact,  but  logically  or  chronologically 
having  neither  precedence. 

Try  this  on  different  expressions  : — I  perceive 
warmth,  and  I  feel  warm  :  are  these  different  nu- 
merically.? 1  see  the  beauty  of  a  poem,  and  I  feel 
the  beauty  of  a  poem,  and  I  love  its  beautifulness. 
Are  those  in  esse  rei  numerically  different }  Now 
climb  up  with  that  a  little  higher,  and  try  it  in  ethi- 
cal affairs.  I  see  the  excellence  of  God,  and  I  feel  the 
excellence  of  God,  and  I  love  the  excellence  of  God, 
or,  if  you  please,  I  love  God  :  are  those  sequent,  the 
one  of  the  other.?  or  are  they  all  a  unity.?  Under- 
stand me.  I  do  not  mean,  synonymous,  or  that 
they  are  all  expressive  of  the  like,  but  that  they 
are  all  one  state,  turned  in  the  aspects  of  our  speech 
and  set  to  a  selected  phase. 

So  in  the  case  before  us. 

Holiness  has  three  senses  :  either,  first,  a  quality ; 
or,  second,  the  things  in  which  this  quality  appears  ; 
or,  third,  a  character. 


1/6  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

In  the  second  of  these  senses  it  apphes  to  two 
emotions  :  either,  first,  a  love  of  others'  welfare  ;  or, 
second,  a  love  to  holiness  in  the  first  sense,  viz.,  a 
love  to  the  quality  that  belongs  to  these  holy  things 
themselves."''*' 

Holy  things,  therefore,  are  feelings,  viz.,  (i)  Be- 
nevolence, and  (2)  Love  to  the  quality  of  virtue  ; 
and  correspond  in  every  particular  to  what  Christ 
marked  (Matt.  xxii.  40)  as  the  two  tables  of  the 
law. 

But  now,  if  holiness  be  these  two  emotions,  then 
sin  is  the  want  of  them.  There  is  no  sin  in  hell  or 
earth  that  is  not  the  want  of  benevolence  or  the 
want  of  love  to  the  quality  of  right. 

But  if  sinfulness  be  a  want  of  love,  pray  what  is 
helplessness  ?  Is  helplessness  any  different  from 
sinfulness  }  I  do  not  mean,  does  it  mean  differently  ? 
but  is  the  thing  different }  Nevertheless,  if  helpless- 
ness be  the  same  as  sinfulness,  and  sinfulness  be  a 
want  of  love,  we  have  our  conclusion  beyond  a 
doubt,  that  helplessness  consists  in  disinclination. 

We  accept,  therefore.  Dr.  Hodge's  illustration 
greedily.  A  man  cannot  love  a  picture  till  he  sees 
its  beauty  (ii.  p.  269)  ;  but  will  any  man  point  out  to 
me  where  these  two  things  separate,  and  become 
either  source  or  consequence  t  I  do  not  taste  first, 
and  enjoy  afterward;  but  I  enjoy  in  tasting.  Loving 
the  warmth  of  my  cloak,  and  knowing  the  warmth 

*  These  are  statements  in  which  we    draw   a   little   upon   our ' 
ethics,  but  not  illogically  so,  since  Christ's  language  (see  Matt.  xxii. 
40)  affords  the  same  premise. 


Chap.  VIIL]  Helplessness  not  Disinclination.         177 

of  my  cloak,  and  feeling  the  warmth  of  my  cloak, 
are  discrepant  in  speech,  but  he  is  a  sharp  thinker 
who  can  look  between  them. 

This  is  no  trifle,  this  Innicn  siccus  antecedent  to 
affection.  It  appears  worse  under  the  category  of 
Faith  (see  iii.  p.  93),  but  bad,  manufactured  into  help- 
lessness. It  builds  a  motive  for  delay.  Skeptics 
like  it.  It  nitakes  the  offers  of  the  gospel  a  sort  of 
triflincj;.  Reason  scoffs  at  such  assurances  of  wel- 
come.  And  when  Dr.  Hodge  proceeds,  and  sepa- 
rates faith  from  morals ;  when  he  says, — "  There  is 
an  obvious  difference  between  morals  and  religion  " 
(vol.  iii.  p.  63)  ;  when  he  says, — "  The  difference 
between  these  two  classes  of  acts,  although  it  may 
not  be  easy  to  state,  is  universally  recognized  ;"  and 
when  he  marks  it  still  closer,  as  '*  between  those 
religious  affections  of  reverence  and  gratitude  which 
all  men  experience,  and  true  religion"  {ibid),  we 
are  almost  in  despair. 

Let  us  be  careful,  therefore. 

There  is  a  sense  in  which  such  sentences  have 
always  been  accepted.  Morality,  in  the  worldly 
view,  is  very  impious.  But  why' is  this.''  Because 
it  is  a  morality  that  is  so  little  moral.  Morality 
as  really  moral  and  yet  not  identical  with  holiness ; 
the  moral  law  rigidly  observed  not  the  part  of  the 
believer  ;  observing  it  better  not  the  mark  of  his 
good  estate  ;  one  virtue  for  the  street  and  one  vir- 
tue for  the  house  of  prayer ;  pure  religion  in  the 
opinion  of  God  not  alms-deeds  (Jas.  i.  27)  ;  and 
men  not  promised  that  their  sins  shall  be  as  snow  if 


1/8  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

they  put  away  the  evil  of  their  doings  from  before  their 
eyes  (Is.  i.  i6,  i8), — is  a  hand-writing  of  the  age, 
which  seems  to  show  why  there  are  so  many  culprits 
in  the  church,  and  to  erect  a  Juggernaut  of  faith  in 
which  inabihty  to  repent  is  something  else  than  wil- 
ful wickedness. 

We  believe  in  inability  to  repent,  if  anything 
more  totally  than  is  believed  by  Dr.  Hodge  (see  vol. 
ii.  pp.  275-277).  The  sinner  will  be  certain  to 
repent  if  he  perseveres  in  using  the  means.  Re- 
ligion is  a  more  certain  enterprise  than  farming  if  we 
employ  diligently  the  means  of  grace.  The  door  is 
wide  open  to  the  worst ;  but  then  they  must  employ 
with  honest  earnestness  the  means  that  are  offered 
to  every  one  of  us.  This  they  will  not  do.  Herein 
consists  their  inability.  We  do  not  believe  that  men 
are  helpless  to  love  God  but  helpful  to  employ  the 
ordinary  means  :  we  believe  that  a  common  help- 
lessness lies  over  every  impulse.  We  believe  this 
is  a  helplessness  of  will  when  will  is  the  thing  con- 
cerned. To  speak  of  will  we  must  look  at  some 
province  of  volition.  The  love  of  God  is  not  such 
a  province  ;  and  there  our  helplessness  is  sheer  dis- 
inclination. The  use  of  the  means  of  grace  is  such 
a  province  ;  and  there  our  helplessness  is  disinclina- 
tion also.  To  say  the  opposite  is  fetich.  And 
when  Dr.  Hodge,  after  actually  quoting  the  Confes- 
sion (chap,  vi.),  "  utterly  indisposed  .  .  .  and  made 
opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil" 
(see  vol.  ii.  p.  260),  goes  on  to  say  that  we  are  com- 
manded to  repent  with  the  distinct  knowledge  that 


Chap.  V III.]  Helplessness  not  Disinclination.  179 

we  cannot  do  it  (ii.  p.  271,  272),  and  that  that  in- 
abihty  does  not  consist  in  disinchnation,  and  that 
then  our  own  consciousness  recommends  this  as  act- 
ually the  fact !  (p.  273,) — he  is  griming  his  own  idol, 
like  an  Aztec  priest,  and  telling  his  own  story  in 
a  way  utterly  irreconcilable  with  our  real  wicked- 
ness. 

Hell  is  for  not  loving  right  and  for  not  loving  the 
welfare  of  those  around  us.  When  a  man  does  not 
love  a  thing,  he  cannot  love  it,  which  Dr.  Hodge 
justly  calls  an  identical  proposition  ;  but  then  that  in- 
ability is  an  inability  of  the  affection,  in  other  words 
it  is  disinclination.  For  those  thus  disinclined 
open  doors  are  set  of  easy  rescue.  They  cannot 
take  them.  Why  }  Simply  because  they  are  not 
inclined.  This  makes  their  guiltiness.  To  say  that 
they  have  an  inability  farther  back,  and  that  God 
knows  it  when  He  tells  us  what  to  do  ;  and  that 
*'  the  command  is  nothing  more  than  the  authorita- 
tive declaration  of  Vv^hat  is  obligatory  "  (p.  267)  ;  and 
then  that  our  consciousness  justifies  all  this  (pp. 
273-5), — is  just  of  that  crust  of  unpracticableness 
that  makes  God  all  for  Himself,  that  gives  us  an  in- 
nate idea  of  His  supremacy,  that  makes  His  revenge 
as  of  His  highest  taste,  that  makes  Him  ruin  in 
order  for  display,  and  that  makes  Him  arbiter  of 
right  and  able  to  give  it  its  nature  by  an  action  of 
His  will. 


i8o  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [BookV. 

CHAPTER   IX. 

SAVING    FAITH    NOT    IN    ITS   ESSENCE    MORAL. 

But,  now,  when  all  this  comes  into  the  region 
of  Faith,  the  idol  is  grimier  yet. 

^   I.  Dr.  Hodge's  Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 

A  man  who  takes  in  Dr.  Hodge's  definition  of 
God,  that  He  is  a  being  that  does  all  things  for 
Himself;  and  who  takes  in  his  genesis  of  right,  that 
it  is  a  right  made  right  simply  by  the  will  of  his 
Creator  ;  and  then  the  genesis  of  our  idea  of  a  Cre- 
ator, viz.,  that  it  is  an  innate  idea,  and  that  the  idea 
is  an  idea  of  responsibility  and  dependence, — will 
be  prepared  for  his  definition  of  faith,  viz.,  a  trust  to 
Christ  on  this  Supreme  Person's  testimony.  The 
grim  feature  would  hardly  be  kept  up  unless  a 
trust  to  the  Supreme  on  a  seniet  ipso  authority  and 
will  shrouded  again  His  intrinsic  excellencies. 

We  believe  that  saving  faith  is  a  trust  to  Christ 
on  a  sight  of  His  excellency.  Dr.  Hodge  believes 
that  it  is  a  trust  in  Christ  nakedly  on  testimony. 

We  believe  that  holiness  is  of  the  very  essence 
of  faith.  Dr.  Hodge  believes  that  faith  is  a  sheer 
thing  by  itself,  and  holiness  must  be  kept  out  of  it 
and  be  its  sequent.  • 

Narrowing  it  in  this  way,  we  might  at  least  claim 
that  he  should  be  precise.  But  here  is  the  suspi- 
cious circumstance,  as  it  is  with  all  idolatry,  that  as 
we  approach  the  Stonehenge  circle  the  gloom  of 
oaks  gathers  about  us.     We  defy  any  one  to  tell  ex- 


Chap.  IX.]      Faith  not  in  Essence  Moral.  l8l 

actly  what  the  differejitia  of  Dr.  Hodge's  faith  can 
be  succinctly  imagined. 

Men  identify  saving  faith  by  two  aspects  of  it, 
(i)  its  nature,  and  (2)  its  object. 

Dr.  Hodge  tells  us  nothing  that  marks  the  dif- 
ferentia of  faith,  except  that  it  has  the  testimony  of 
the  Spirit.  He  tells  us,  the  Spirit  is  invisible,  and 
that  the  testimony  is  known  only  by  its  effects,  (i) 
The  nature,  therefore,  is  not  revealed  by  this  ;  for 
belief  and  trust,  and  whatsoever  other  psychological 
word  is  employed  for  the  effect  of  the  Spirit,  has  no 
differentia  ex  se,  for  the  reason  that  precisely  the 
same  words  are  used  for  other  exercises. 

]Ve  give  a  mark  boldly.  We  say  the  differentia 
of  savins;  faith  is  holiness.  All  faith  before  that  is 
common.  Upon  mounting  to  saving  faith  it  be- 
comes holy.  The  eye  of  the  moral  man  is  opened, 
and  in  the  light  of  that  new  uncovering  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  glory  of  God  is  revealed  in  the  face  of 
•Jesus. 

(2).  The  other  statement  about  saving  faith 
must  be  as  to  its  object.  Dr.  Hodge  uncovers  none. 
He  tells  us  the  object  is  Christ.  He  puts  much  of 
our  believing  in  the  form  of  trust.  But  Christ  is 
not  the  object  e.r  dfferentia,  and  Dr.  Hodge 
smothers  by  Him  the  vital  question.  The  object  of 
the  hypocrite  is  Christ.  Differentia  must  be  of  such 
a  form  as  to  mark  the  Christ  of  the  believer,  and  to 
mark  the  Christ  of  the  impenitent  man.  We  do 
that.  We  say.  Faith  is  in  a  Jioly  Saviour.  And 
here  it  will  be  seen  how  the  nature  of  faith  and  the 


1 82  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

object  of  faith  can  perfectly  agree.  Subjectively  it 
is  a  moral  act,  and  objectively  it  has  a  moral  object. 
**  We  knozv  what  we  worship  "  (Jo.  iv.  22).  But  Dr. 
Hodge  simply  states  a  history, — '  It  has  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Spirit ; '  and  when  we  hunger  after  that 
to  find  a  differentia\\\z.\.  shall  have  a  distinguishable 
nature,  he  tells  us  that  we  know  only  the  effects, 
and  when  we  ask  after  the  effects,  we  get  only  words 
that  are  entirely  common  as  to  the  saint  and  as  to 
the  unbeliever. 

We  can  only  fasten  on  his  negatives.  Dr. 
Hodge  certainly  says  (vol.  i.  53),  "Moral  truth 
requires  moral  evidence,  and  ^the  things  of  the 
Spirit'  the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit."  The  apostle 
John  seems  to  imply  (Jo.  iii.  6,  9;  and  v.  18)  that  we 
know  the  Spirit  by  His  moral  effects  ;  but  Dr.  Hodge 
takes  the  negative.  (Vol.  iii.  p.  88)  "  It  is  not  cor- 
rect to  say  that  faith  is  assent  founded  on  feeling." 
Vol.  iii.  p.  93,  He  denies  *'  that  men  believe  the 
truth  because  they  love  it."  "  Love  [is  not]  the 
essence  of  saving  faith"  (vol.  iii.  94).  Sanctifica- 
tion  is  the  effect  of  faith  (vol,  iii.  108)  in  such  a 
sense  that  this  latter  precedes  repentance  (vol.  iii. 
41)  as  cause  and  effect.  We  are  not  justified  by 
faith  "as  a  pious  disposition  of  the  mind,"  but  (now 
mark  the  utter  scorn  of  any  practicable  differentia) 
by  "  faith  of  which  Christ  is  the  object"  (vol.  iii.  98). 
This  boldly  brings  forth  our  difficulty,  which  is 
that  Dr.  Hodge  really  does  not  define  faith  ;  for 
specifically  of  what  faith  is  not  Christ  the  object } 
On  the  contrary,  he  seems  to  deny  any  subjective 


Chap.  IX.]       Faith  not  in  Essence  Moral.  183 

difference.  "Everywhere  in  the  Bible  the  fact  that 
any  one  beUeves  is  referred  not  to  his  subjective 
state,  but  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit  on  his  heart" 
(vol.  iii.  72).  Faith  does  not  include  feeling  {ibid. 
49).  Again,  "  If  justification  is  sanctification,  then 
it  may  be  admitted  that  love  has  more  to  do  with 
making  men  holy  than  faith  considered  as  mere  in- 
tellectual assent"  (ibid.  95). 

Now  far  be  it  from  us  to  take  the  opposite  of 
all  these  positions.  It  would  not  answer  as  lan- 
guage of  our  choice.  But  much  farther  be  it,  cer- 
tainly, to  affirm  them  as  they  stand.  **  Protestants," 
says  Dr.  Hodge,  "  are  strenuous  in  denying  that  we 
are  justified  on  account  of  love  "  (ibid.  95).  We  are 
not  suited  by  saying  that  we  are  justified  *'  07i  ac- 
count of  any  thing,  unless  it  be  the  righteousness 
of  Christ.  The  preposition  would  have  to  be  un- 
usually defined,  and,  moreover,  is  chosen  polemically. 
Nor  do  we  care  to  say  that  we  are  justified  by  love. 
It  leaves  out  what  we  are  to  teach  hereafter  in  re- 
spect to  the  pre-eminence  of  faith  (p.  201).  But 
these  propositions  serve  one  purpose :  They  dis- 
tinctly give  attitude  to  Dr.  Hodge.  When  he  says, 
*'  So  far  as  the  testimony  is  moral  .  .  .  the  faith  is 
temporary"  (iii.  p.  74);  or  when  he  says,  ''Faith 
is  founded  not  on  the  moral  evidence  of  the  truth, 
but  on  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit,"  etc.  (p.  68)  ;  or 
when  he  says,  '*  The  fact  that  any  one  believes  is 
referred  not  to  his  subjective  state,  but  to  the  work 
of  the  Spirit  on  his  heart"  (p.  72)  ;  we  are  not  dis- 
posed to  let  the  opposites  of  these  be  the  forms   in 


1 84  Fetich  in  Docti'ine.  [Book  V. 

which  to  express  our  reasonings,  but  we  do  gather  a 
great  departure  from  the  moraUty  of  the  gospel. 

When  Dr.  Hodge  says,  "If  justification  is  sanc- 
tification  then  it  may  be  admitted  that  love  has 
more  to  do  with  making  men  holy  than  faith  consid- 
ered as  mere  intellectual  exercise"  (p.  95),  I  seize 
that  sentence  as  in  the  grasp  of  a  vice.  Then  "  faith 
considered  as  mere  intellectual  exercise "  is  the 
faith  we  are  grappling  after.  Dr.  Hodge  will  hardly 
father  it.  Brahm  will  hardly  say,  This  earth-pot  is 
the  great  All-Eye.  Brahm  will  run  to  his  defence, 
and  utter  many  things  that  I  cannot  think  wrong. 
But  then  his  drift  remains.  It  may  have  been  half 
blundered  upon.  Still  it  is  here: — ''Mere  intel- 
lectual EXERCISE."  And  if  faith  is  assent ;  if  it  is  not 
of  its  essence  holy;  if  its  object  is  Christ  ;  if  it  is 
based  upon  authority  ;  if  such  a  base  and  such  an 
object  belong  also  to  the  faith  of  the'  impenitent  ;  if, 
therefore,  saving  faith  has  the  authority  of  the  Spirit ; 
if,  however,  this  is  invisible,  and  can  be  known  only  by 
its  effects  ;  and  if,  finally,  it  is  still  not  moral,  and 
these  effects  are  not  subjective,  but  the  ''work  of 
the  Spirit"  (p.  72), — we  are  in  Brahm's  cycle  of 
truth  ;  and  we  can  at  least  fasten  upon  one  result, 
— that  whatever  there  is  indistinct  in  the  discrep- 
ancies of  Dr.  Hodge,  there  is  at  least  one  agree- 
ment,— that  faith  is  none  of  your  instances  of  love, 
and  that  saving  confidence  is  not  moral  in  its 
wakening  vision. 

And  we  learn  more  of  this  as  we  advance  in  his 
reasonincj. 


Chap.  IX.]        Faith  not  in  Essence  Moral.  185 

Suppose,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  he  is 
under  prejudice.  Suppose  that  the  tempting  which 
he  shares  with  all  the  Church  comes  to  him  on  the 
side  of  superstition.  Suppose  that  he  is  a  fetich- 
man,  and  that  he  offers  Doctrinalism  as  twin  of  Rit- 
ualism ; — Ritualism  appealing  to  the  very  most 
genuine  texts,  would  not  Doctrinalism  also  to  the 
tenderest  revelations  of  the  gospel  "i 

Suppose  the  problem  be  to  steal  off  with  holi- 
ness. Would  not  Satan  accomplish  it  in  the  most 
stealthy  forms  with  a  rear-guard  of  the  very  words 
of  the  Redeemer } 

Accordingly,  how  is  it } 

Recollect,  millions  are  at  stake,  and  like  Eve  in 
Eden  worlds  hang  upon  a  wrong  interpretation, — 
what  would  be  the  style  of  argument  by  which  men 
would  inaugurate  the  error } 

This  writer  expounds  it  by  three  indignant 
appeals  : — 

I.  If  faith  is  holy,  then  works  save  us,  and  the 
work  of  Christ  is  cast  out  of  the  account  (iii.  p. 
170,  et  passini). 

II.  If  faith  is  holy,  we  are  justified  by  holiness  ; 
and  how  stands  the  doctrine  that  we  are  justified  by 
faith  }  (iii.  pp.  93,  172.) 

III.  Besides,  if  faith  is  holy,  then  what  of  its 
effects  }  one  of  its  most  signal  sequences  being  that 
it  has  the  effect  of  sanctifying  the  soul.?  (iii.  p.  108.) 

I.  In  respect  to  the  first,  though  Christ  be  holy, 
why  may  not  we  be  }  Though  holiness  be  a  ground 
of  pardon,  why  may  it  not  be  a  condition  }    Because 


1 86  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

holiness  in  Christ  is  the  ground  of  our  redemption, 
why  may  He  demand  any  condition  at  all,  and  not 
make  one  essence  of  that  condition  to  consist  in 
holiness  ? 

Mark  the  extravagance  of  the  system.  I  must 
be  made  holy.  Without  holiness  no  man  shall  see  the 
Lord.  Works  must  be  holy :  and  without  works  the 
man  is  lost.  But  they  must  be  produced  by  faith. 
Though  all  graces  must  be  of  their  very  essence 
holy,  faith,  the  leader  of  the  band,  must  be  stripped 
of  this  vital  beginning. 

The  thing  is  impossible. 

And  the  argument  is  strained. 

For  if  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  not  detracted 
from  by  the  demand  of  a  condition,  and  that  con- 
dition imply  trust  or  a  dozen  other  qualities  or  parts, 
why  may  not  one  quality  be  holiness }  Or,  in  other 
words,  granting  the  premise  that  we  have  been 
obeyed  for  only  by  Christ,  where  is  the  sharp  con- 
clusion that  He  may  not  make  tts  obey  as  the  open- 
ing fruits,  or  the  vital  test,  or,  for  all  those  who 
prefer  the  language,  the  instrumental  means,  of  the 
soul's  acceptance  1 

H.  So  of  the  second  point.  'Faith  saves  us. 
And  just  as  Christ's  holiness  covers  all  the  ransom, 
so  our  faith  covers  all  the  ground  of  first  condition. 
Where  is  the  room  for  holiness  ? ' 

Now  let  us  apply  that  to  Transubstantiation. 
We  are  saved  by  eating.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
about  that,  for  we  have  the  express  Scripture  (Jo.  vi. 
53).     Where  is  the  room  for  faith  ;  for  our  Saviour, 


Chap.  IX.]       Faith  not  in  Essence  Moral.  187 

having  done  all  the  work,  frames  for  us  the  fixed 
condition  ?  Ay,  but  we  are  to  eat  in  faith.  No, 
says  the  Papist,  you  make  void  the  grace  of  the 
sacrament. 

Now  will  any  one  point  out  the  difference 
between  these  two  arguments  ?  We  say, — Faith, 
but  a  holy  faith.  Dr.  Jiodge  would  say, — Eating, 
but  a  believing  eating.  If  I  must  eat  believingly, 
and  still  there  is  no  detriment  to  the  Mass,  why 
must  I  not  believe  lovingly,  with  yet  no  detriment 
to  the  gospel }  The  circumstances  are  most  abso- 
lutely similar.  Faith  and  the  Mass  fare  each  badly 
in  the  opposite  hands.  And  what  is  the  reason  } 
Rome  drives  faith  out  of  the  Sacrament ;  and  Dr. 
Hodge,  holiness  out  of  faith.  Why  }  Because  each 
claims  his  definition.  Give  Rome  her  definition  of 
what  regenerates  a  child,  and  we  are  vanquished  if 
we  introduce  faith  ;  and  give  Dr.  Hodge  his  defini- 
tion of  saving  faith,  and  we  are  vanquished  if  we 
introduce  holiness. 

HI.  And  so  of  the  third  point. 

The  third  point  is,  that  faith  produces  holiness 
(iii.  p.  41).  And  what  is  the  conclusion  from 
that .''  That  faith  producing  holiness,  the  two  things 
must  be  something  different ! — a  clear  pctitio  like 
the  last.  Joy  produces  holiness.  Is,  therefore,  joy 
not  holy }  Again,  joy  produces  joy.  Is  the  first 
joy  one  thing,  and  the  last  joy  different, — except  that 
it  may  be  different  in  degree  .'*  Let  us  go-  a  little 
deeper.  Holiness  produces  holiness.  The  first 
holiness,  therefore,  is  unholy  !    Dr.  Hodge  must  have 


1 88  Fetich  in  Doctrine. 


[Book  V. 


his  definition,  and  faith  is  not  of  its  essence  holy, 
or  else  neither  of  the  three  are  points  that  he  can 
lean  to  for  his  vindication. 

On  the  contrary,  though  we  be  justified  by  faith, 
much  Scripture  would  be  a  mystery  if  Dr.  Hodge 
define  the  exercise.  Let  faith  be  an  assent  upon 
authority,  so  as  to  be  sharp  and  narrow,  and  to  ex- 
clude what  is  moral  from  the  field,  and  how  baffled 
would  we  be  with  dissentient  testimonies  (see 
Rom  viii.  24;  2  Thess.  ii.  10).  But  let  faith  be  in 
its  essence  moral,  and  the  kernel  of  it  is  in  every 
grace.  Divine  reasons  accentuate  faith  (see  Heb. 
xi.  6),  but  never  to  the  exclusion  of  holiness.  We 
may  be  saved  by  anything,  let  it  be  only  holy.  Be- 
cause,— did  the  Most  High  mock  Cain  when  He 
said, — "  If  thou  doest  well  shalt  thou  not  be  accept- 
ed .''  "  The  grace  of  holiness  must  enter  any  act  to 
make  it  saving.  If  thou  doest  not  well,  apply  at 
once  to  the  Helper.  *'  The  Sin-Offering  lieth  at  the 
door."  That  happens,  therefore,  which  would  seem 
most  natural,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  breaks  away  from 
harping  only  upon  our  confidence,  and  lifts  up  to  the 
forefront  some  other  exercise  of  holiness  (Ex.  xix. 
5,  and  I  Tim.  iv.  16)  :  the  Holy  Ghost  this  signifying, 
that  faith  is  not  faith  to  rescue  a  man  till  it  is  holy 
(Jas.  ii.  20)  ;  and  as  holiness  mounting  into  faith 
has  mounted  therefore  into  character,  all  graces,  as 
they  must  equally  possess  it,  are  equal  tests  of  the 
soul's  salvation. 


Chap.  IX.]      Faith  not  in  Essence  Moral.  189 

§  2.  Dr.  Hodge's  Contradictions. 

Dr.  Hodge,  having  marked  with  such  very  dis- 
tinct utterances  the  exclusion  of  hoUness  from  any- 
thing as  of  the  essence  of  faith,  •••'  wakens  the  usual 
surprise  by  sentences  entirely  opposite.  He  at- 
tacks Bellarmine,  and  says, — he  **  makes  love  the 
essence  of  faith  "  (vol.  iii.  p.  94).  "  In  other  words," 
he  says,  ''love  with  them  (i.  e.,  the  Romanists)  is 
the  form  of  faith  :  it  is  that  which  gives  it  being  or 
character  as  a  Christian  virtue  or  grace "  {ibid). 
He  says,  "  all  this  is  intelligible  and  reasonable  pro- 
vided we  admit  subjective  justification  and  the  merit 
of  good  works"  (ibid.).  And  he  joins  with  Luther 
in  his  violent  language, — "  This  pestilent  and  Sa- 
tanic gloss  I  am  not  able  in  any  temperate  way  to 
detest"  (ibid.).  And  yet  he  has  already  said,  far 
back  on  the  fiftieth  page, — "  The  perception  of 
beauty  is  of  necessity  connected  with  the  feeling  of 
delight.  Assent  to  moral  truth  involves  the  feeling 
of  moral  approbation.     In  like  manner  spiritual 

DISCERNMENT  (fAITH  WHEN  THE  FRUIT  OF  THE  SPIRIT) 

*  It  is  astonishing  how  this  pervades  our  literature  : — "  The 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone  is  so  simple  and  self-evident 
to  all  Protestants,  it  has  been  so  inculcated  from  the  cradle,  that  it 
is  difficult  for  us  to  realize  how  it  struck  the  pious  monks  in  the  days 
of  the  Reformation.  For  it  is  a  doctrine  which  the  Church  of  Rome 
has  ever  stamped  as  heresy.  Rome  teaches  that  men  are  saved,  not 
by  simple  t*ust  in  the  free  mercy  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Saviour,  but  by  love  and  good  works.  We  are  pardoned  according 
to  Roman  Catholic  theology  only  when  we  become  good.  Accord- 
ing to  Protestant  theology  we  becom.e  good,  only  after  we  are  par- 
doned."     Christian  Weekly,  March  14,  1874,  p.  125, 


1 90  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

INCLUDES  DELIGHT  IN  THE  THINGS  OF  THE  SPIRIT, 
NOT    ONLY    AS    TRUE,  BUT    AS  BEAUTIFUL  AND    GOOD. 

This  is  the  difference  between  a  Uving  and  dead 
faith.  This  is  the  portion  of  truth  involved  in  the 
Romish  doctrine  of  a  formed  and  unformed  faith " 
(iii.  p.  50). 

Is  not  this  startling  } 

The  sentence  we  have  picked  out  in  capitals 
takes  up  all  our  doctrine  in  the  case  to  the  utter- 
most crumb.  Dr.  Hodge  joins  us  at  a  leap. 
Look  all  through  the  sentence.  ''  Delight  in  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  as  beautiful  and  good  :  "  what  is 
that  .^  Delight  in  Christ,  for  example,  as  good  .^  If 
words  can  say  anything  that  is  more  thoroughly  an 
account  of  holiness,  we  are  unable  to  select  them. 
And  yet  mark  !  he  does  not  speak  now  of  a  conse- 
quence of  faith,  but  of  what  it  "  includes."  And 
then  the  very  word  in  its  English  dress, — *'  the  dif- 
fer enceT  The  differentia  *'  between  a  living  and 
dead  faith  "  is  that  it  "  includes  delight  in  the  things 
of  the  Spirit,  not  only  as  true  but  as  beautiful  and 
good." 

But  let  us  go  on  to  other  cases. 

On  the  eighty-ninth  page  Dr.  Hodge  says, — 
''  His  faith  is  founded  on  the  inward  testimony  of 
the  Spirit  by  which  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  revealed  to  him."  And  on  the  ninety- 
first  page, — "  This  includes  the  apprehension  and 
conviction  of  His  divine  glory,  and  the  adoring  rever- 
ence, love,  confidence  and  submission,  which  are  due 
to  God  alone." 


Chap.  IX.]      Faith  not  in  Essence  Moral.  191 

We  had  a  hand  raised  at  the  opening  of  our 
treatise  to  erase  a  sentence  in  which  we  spoke  of 
contradiction  as  though  it  were  a  mannerism  of  Dr. 
Hodge  ;  but  really  was  it  unjust  ?  "  A  delight  in 
things  as  good  "  is  not  a  bad  definition  of  holiness  ; 
undoubtedly  in  the  broad  philosophies  nothing  can 
be  more  discriminatedly  holy.  Dr.  Hodge  declares 
that  it  is  the  differentia  of  what  saves.  And  yet 
it  is  after  this  that  his  expulsion  of  it  is  so  abrupt ; 
and  as  late  as  the  ninety-fifth  page,  that  he  sheers 
away  everything  but  **  mere  intellectual  assent,"  and 
says, — "  If  justification  is  sanctification ;  "  that  is,  if 
by  making  faith  moral  all  things  else  must  be  sub- 
verted ;  **  then  it  may  be  admitted  that  love  has 
more  to  do  with  making  men  holy  than  faith  consid- 
ered as  mere  intellectual  assent."  Let  us  finish  the 
passage.  '*  And  if  it  be  conceded  that  we  are  ac- 
cepted by  God  on  the  ground  of  our  own  virtue, 
then  it  may  be  granted  that  love  is  more  valuable, 
than  any  mere  exercise  of  the  intellect." 

§  3.  Argument  from  Scripture. 

The  texts  that  Dr.  Hodge  quotes  are  like  the 
scooped  rinds  on  All-Hallows  Eve,  that  get  their 
features  from  the  fire  that  we  put  within  them. 
Give  Dr.  Hodge  his  definition  of  faith,  and,  of  course, 
holiness  is  not  essential  to  it ;  but  then  the  text  sim- 
ply serves  as  a  frame,  and  the  whole  logical  result 
is  arrived  at  in  the  preliminary  definition. 

So  then  let  us  dispose  of  the  texts  in  blocks,  like 
the  great  bankers  on  the  Stock  Exchange. 


192  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

First,  all  those  texts  that  speak  of  faith  as  the 
whole  of  that  by  which  we  are  justified.  Of  course 
holiness  is  an  intruder  upon  the  work,  unless  it  be 
of  the  very  essence  of  faith.  But  Dr.  Hodge  never 
gives  us  the  benefit  of  our  own  frankly  stated  sup- 
position. We  believe  that  color  is  in  its  very 
essence  light.  If,  therefore,  we  admit  that  all 
things  are  made  visible  by  color,  he  is  enforcing 
upon  us  his  own  different  definition  who  says  that 
they  are,  therefore,  not  on  this  very  account  also 
made  visible  by  light. 

So  also  in  all  the  other  texts.  There  is  a  pctitio. 
We  grant  the  premise,  but  we  are  always  put  to  the 
wall  by  a  forced  conclusion. 

For  example,  another  block  of  texts.  "  By  the 
deeds  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  "  (Rom. 
iii.  20).  A  man  is  a  Deist  who  does  not  take  all 
those  asseverations.  But  what  do  they  distinctly 
mean  1  They  distinctly  mean  that  Christ  obeyed 
the  law,  and  wrought  for  us  a  complete  and  all 
comprehending  atonement.  But  does  that  mean 
that  He  believed  for  us }  Did  He  work  out  in  His 
heart,  or  did  He  work  out  in  ours,  the  all-needed 
condition  of  a  subjective  confidence }  If  He 
wrought  it  out  in  ours,  then  you  are  putting  your 
definition  into  .faith,  if  you  say  it  is  not  a  holy  faith. 
We  must  have  a  holy  hope,  and  a  holy  love,  and  a 
holy  joy,  and  without  every  one  of  these  things  we 
cannot  see  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  We  must  have 
a  holy  holiness,  and  confessedly  without  holiness  no 
man  can  see  the  Lord.     And  if  things  so  express 


Chap.  IX.]       Faith  not  in  Essence  Moral.  193 

as  this  do  not  damage  the  obedience  of  Christ,  why 
a  holy  faith  ? 

Then  another  block  of  texts.  Faith  specially 
interferes  because  it  is  the  great  entrance  into 
grace.  It  cannot  be  moral  because  it  wins  morality.* 
It  cannot  be  of  its  essence  holy  because  it  is  the 
path  to  holiness  (Acts  xv.  9).  It  is  the  hand 
reached  out  for  our  redemption  (Col.  ii.  6).  But 
now,  rigidly,  we  demand  a  choice.  Is  it  or  is  it 
not  un-moral  because  it  interferes  with  Christ }  Is 
it  oris  it  not  un-moral  because  it  makes  men  moral.'* 
Let  us  bind  the  argument  to  the  intended  proof. 
It  is  not  un-moral  because  of  the  obedience  of 
Christ,  for  His  perfect  obedience  does  not  forbid  the 
grace  of  obedience  as  the  condition  of  acceptance. 
Nor  is  it  un-moral  because  it  makes  men  moral 
(Acts  XV.  9).  To  show  that  faith  and  holiness  must 
be  apart,  we  must  show  in  this  class  of  texts  that 
holiness  itself  does  not  produce  holiness  among 
men  (see  above,  p.  187). 

But  now,  turning  the  tables,  what  is  meant  by 
our  being  **  justified  by  works  .^  "  (Jas.  ii.  24.)  Isaiah 
tells  us  to  *'  wash  us,  make  us  clean,"  and  then  im- 
mediately adds,  '*  Though  your  sins  be  as  scarlet 
they  shall  be  as  white  as  snow."  Ezekiel  says,  ''  Make 
you  a  new  heart"  (Ezek.  xviii.  31).  The  Saviour 
preaches,  ''Repentance  and  remission  of  sins"  (Luke 
xxiv.  47),  and'Peter  repeats, — **  Repent  and  be  con- 
verted, that  your  sins  may  be  forgiven  you "  (Acts 
iii.    19).     Matthew  never   speaks  of  faith   until    his 

*  We  use  morality  in  the  philosophic  sense. 
9 


1 94  FeticJi  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

sixth  chapter.  John  thunders  out,  '*  Repent,"  and 
the  axe  is  laid  for  them  that  bring  not  forth  good 
fruit :  and  Jesus,  in  His  only  extended  speech,  fiUs 
out  all  its  paragraphs  to  the  very  end  about  a 
righteousness  which  is  not  His  righteousness  at  all, 
but  a  righteousness  that  must  be  greater  than  of 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  and  must  be  a  righte- 
ousness such  that  if  a  man  hears  about  it  and  does 
it  not  he  builds  his  house  upon  the  sand  (Matt, 
vii.  26). 

Now,  theologians  mock  the  Scriptures  when 
they  say  that  James  means  not  that  a  man  is  justi- 
fied but  that  his  faith  is.  Burkitt  and  Henry  both 
use  this  wanton  arguing.  Because,  where  may  it 
stop.'*  James  deliberately  approaches  an  abuse  in 
dogmatic  theology.  Paul  had  been  preaching  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  Holiness  had 
been  swept  out  of  it,  just  as  Dr.  Hodge  has  taught 
it.  James  takes  fire  at  the  mistake.  Undoubtedly 
we  are  justified  by  faith,  and  Paul  beautifully  taught 
all  that  transcendent  gospel.  Undoubtedly  we  are 
justified  by  grace.  But  now,  only  supply  a  faith 
that  is  of  its  essence  moral,  and  all  beautifully  falls 
into  its  accepted  place.  James  does  not  say  our 
faith  is  justified  by  works,  but  "a  man  is."  *'Ye 
see  then  how  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified  and 
not  by  faith  only  "  (Jas.  ii.  22),  and  in  James  all  binds 
itself  beautifully  together.  Repent  and  be  saved 
(Acts  iii.  19);  why,  if  we  are  justified  by  faith  .^ 
Because  we  will  not  believe  unless  we  repent.  Why 
then  not  say, — Repent,  and  no  longer  say,  Believe  t 


CiiAP.  IX.  ]     FaitJi  not  in  Essence  Moral.  195 

Because  we  will  not  repent  unless  we  believe. 
Each  is  wrapped  up,  and  each  inside  the  one  of  the 
other.  Hence  we  are  justified  by  works,  because 
holiness  is  of  the  very  essence  of  faith,  and  faith 
never  justifies  without  this  sole  differentia,  the  very 
highest  in  its  nature.  Repent  and  be  saved.  Why? 
Because  the  moment  a  man  is  holy  he  is  saved. 
Believe  and  be  saved,  because  a  man  is  never  holy 
till  he  believes  ;  and  it  has  pleased  God,  as  we  shall 
afterwards  show,  that  for  the  honor  of  Christ,  and 
as  His  intended  scheme,  it  shall  be  a  vision  of  His 
excellence  that  shall  be  the  first  holy  act  that  shall 
unite  us  to  the  Redeemer. 

Would  it  be  safe  to  give  up  faith  and  try  to  be 
holy  to  get  into  the  kingdom  .^  I  say.  No.  Not 
that  a  holy  act  would  not  be  entrance  there ;  not 
that  a  holy  act  would  not  prove  that  we  had  been 
admitted ;  but  that  a  holy  act  will  not  be  given  in 
the  neglect  of  Christ ;  it  has  pleased  the  Father 
that  Christ  shall  give  it ;  it  has  become  the  plan 
that  we  shall  seek  holiness  at  the  hand  of  Christ ; 
and  hence  we  dawn  into  being  holy  in  an  open  eye 
upon  the  excellence  of  the  Redeemer. 

^  4.  Dr.  Hodge's  Argument  from  Reason. 

If  our  differentia  were  granted,  namely  holiness, 
it  would  leave  a  wholesome  liberty  for  all  the  other 
characters  of  faith.  Philologically  considered  there 
is  no  end  to  its  variety.  I  believe  anything, — sure 
or  radically  doubtful, — from  a  ghost  story  that  the 
most  credulous  might  reject,  up  to  self-evident  truth 
like  the   testimony  of   sense.      Psychologically  we 


1 96  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book.  V. 

are  just  as  wide.  Faith  really  is  no  special  psycho- 
logic term.  Nor  in  religion  has  it,  outside  of  grace, 
any  psychologic  fixity. 

Dr.  Hodge,  however,  had  a  certain  head  to  bore 
to.  Like  Shanly  in  the  Hoosac  mine  his  headings 
must  come  out  together.  He  begins,  therefore,  back 
among  the  hills  ;  and  as  faith  that  saves  is  to  be  be- 
lief on  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  (iii.  p.  6Z^,  he 
gives  that  heading  to  the  work  away  back  in  the 
region  of  psychology.  He  defines  about  thus: — 
Psychologic  faith,  i.  e.,  belief  upon  testimony;  relig- 
ious faith,  i.  e.,  belief  upon  Authority  ;  saving  faith, 
i.  e.,  belief  in  Christ  on  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit. 
When  the  blast  is  heard,  day-light  passes  all  through 
the  bore  from  one  end  to  the  other. 

But  really,  inspect  this  work.  Is  faith  a  term  of 
psychology  }  Or  if  it  is,  is  it  not  a  random  term 
for  any  form  of  belief  or  conviction  }  Why  does 
Dr.  Hodge  say  it  is  not  a  belief  in  this  thing  or  that 
thing  i* — in  the  unseen  (iii.  p.  53),  as  Lombard  ex- 
presses \V.  in  the  un-positive  or  what  is  only  proba- 
ble 1  (p.  46.)  Where  does  he  get  any  restriction  for 
the  use  of  faith  1  Or  when  we  arrive  into  religion, 
why  may  not  things  win  my  faith  when  they  suit  my 
conscience,  or  when  they  tally  with  my  reason } 
Why  must  I  always  believe  upon  authority.?  par- 
ticularly when  the  Bible  tells  me  that  ''the  invisible 
things  of  Him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  .... 
are  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made  ?  "  (Rom. 
i.  20).  Where,  logically  and  by  laws  that  would 
be  exacted  in  science,  does  Dr.  Hodge  get  the  right 


Chap.  IX.]      Faith  not  in  Essence  Moral.  197 

to  chain  a  word  down  to  unity  when  it  is  so  com- 
mon as  faith,  and  thus  have  it  all  ready  to  shed  its 
probabilities  upon  that  faith  that  he  describes  as 
saving  ? 

And  even  afterwards,  when  the  headings  meet, 
what  use  can  he  make  of  his  tunnel  after  all  ?  What 
knowledge  does  it  bring  to  us  of  the  actual  differ- 
entia of  faith  ?  He  says,  it  "  is  founded  on  the 
Spirit's  testimony  "  (iii.  p.  6%).  Suppose  we  grant  it. 
Suppose  we  agree  with  Dr.  Hodge  (and  nothing 
can  be  easier  historically)  that  it  is  the  Spirit  that 
brings  the  faith,  and  that  we  never  could  enjoy  it 
without  the  Spirit's  testimony.  That  is  all  so.  But 
what  is  all  that  but  an  invisible  transaction  .''  Do  we 
taste  it }  Do  we  see  it.-*  We  taste  the  fruits  of  it. 
And  there  is  the  very  question.  What  are  the 
fruits  of  the  Spirit's  testimony  t  Dr.  Hodge  dis- 
tinctly buries  this.  What  is  the  dijferentia  when 
the  Spirit  works  t  We  say,  holiness.  Dr.  Hodge 
admits,  "When  a  man  .  .  .  believes  he  is  conscious 
only  of  his  own  exercises  "  (p.  Z^').  He  avows,  he 
*'is  not  [conscious]  of  the  supernatural  influences 
of  the  Spirit "  (p.  89).  To  these  ''  those  exercises 
[only]  owe  their  origin  and  nature  "  (p.  89).  Dr. 
Hodge,  therefore,  has  not  given  a  conscious  differ- 
entia. And  when  we  attempt  one  and  say,  The  dif- 
ferentia of  faith  is  a  sight  of  excellence  granted  by 
the  Spirit,  he  turns  his  back  upon  it.  As  though 
I  were  to  say, — The  differentia  of  art  is  beauty. 
Dr.  Hodge  might  retort.  No ;  the  differentia  of 
art  is    genius.       I    might   respond.    True   enough : 


198  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [BookV. 

that  is  the  historic  account  of  its  creation  :  but  the 
differefitia  of  art,  as  an  apprehended  verity,  is  the 
beauty  of  the  work,  and  genius  is  the  unseen  skill 
that  attests  itself  and  exerts  itself  in  its  execu- 
tion. 

We  will  not  decide  for  Dr.  Hodge,  but  some- 
times he  seems  to  doubt  a  differentia.  "  Every 
where  in  the  Bible,"  such  is  his  distinct  avowal, 
*'  the  fact  that  any  one  believes  is  referred  not  to  his 
subjective  state,  but  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit  on  his 
heart  "  (p.  72).  Then  there  is  no  subjective  differ- 
ence. Then  the  psychologic  faith  was  the  saving 
faith,  with  this  only  interposed,  that  this  last  is  the 
work  of  the  Spirit.  Then  subjectively,  and  so  con- 
sciously, there  is  no  apprehended  difference.  Then 
psychologically  defined  faith  is  hermeneutically  de- 
fined and  dogmatically  defined  and  soteriologically 
defined  sufficiently  and  all  in  one.  Then  faith  very 
rightfully  is  "  intellectual  assent"  (p.  95);  and  Dr. 
Hodge  so  glorifies  trust,  that,  grant  the  object  is 
Christ,  and  grant  the  subject  is  the  lost,  and  grant 
the  giver  is  the  Spirit,  then  faith  has  no  conscious 
mark  at  all.  It  is  only  intelligent  assent  to  the 
things  of  the  gospel. 

On  no  other  foot  can  we  understand  certain  very 
grave  asseverances.  "  Faith  is  [not]  founded  on 
feeling,  because  it  is  only  of  certain  forms  or  exer- 
cises of  faith  that  this  can  even  plausibly  be  said " 
(p.  89  ;  see  also  pp.  52,  60).  Again.  **  There  are 
many  exercises  of  even  saving  faith  ....  which  are 
not    attended    by   feeling  "  (p.  89).     And  again, — 


Chap.  IX.        FaitJi  not  in  Essence  Moral.  199 

''This  is  the  case  when  the  object  of  faith  is  some 
historic  fact "  {ibid.').     Let  us  lay  stress  on  this. 

Faith  is  either  a  habit  or  an  act.  In  other  words 
the  expression  ''faith  "  means  either  the  grace  of 
beHeving,  or  the  saving  act  by  which  a  soul  is  recon- 
ciled to  God.  In  our  theory  the  discrepance  is  a 
matter  of  indifference.  In  either  meaning  holiness 
is  the  dijferentia  of  the  faith.  But  with  Dr.  Hodge 
what  are  we  to  understand  1  If  faith  be  a  Christian 
grace,  then  are  there  some  forms  of  Christian  grace 
that  do  not  include  feeling  }  Or  if  faith  be  a  sav- 
ing act,  then  are  there  some  saving  acts  that  include 
it, — or  not,  as  the  case  may  be  1 

The  differentia,  then,  must  be  in  the  intellect. 
The  psychological  beginning-back  was  not,  there- 
fore, so  far  out  of  the  way  as  we  might  imagine. 
Faith  is  a  belief  upon  testimony  (iii.  p.  60).  Some- 
times it  is  moral.  Sometimes  it  is  not  (i.  p.  53). 
Its  being  moral  is  not  therefore  the  differentia.  The 
differentia  is  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  (iii.  p.  6%'). 
And  as  the  Spirit  is  invisible,  and  we  are  conscious 
only  of  our  own  exercises  at  the  time  (iii.  p.  ^Z), 
there  is  nothing  subjective  in  the  case  (p.  72),  un- 
less it  be  an  intellectual  belief  (p.  95),  and  those 
after  gifts  which  are  the  reward  of  our  believing. 

^  5.   Our  Own  Doctrine. 

Holiness  enters  in  two  ways  into  the  work  of 
our  salvation.  Perfectly,  it  became  the  ground, 
germinatingly,  it  became  the  test,  of  the  sinner's  ac- 
ceptance with  the  Father. 


200  Feticli  in  Doctrine,  [Book  Y. 

A  priori  there  is  no  clashing,  that  Dr.  Hodge 
ever  points  out,  of  one  of  these  hoUnesses  with  the 
other. 

Perfectly,  holiness  in  Christ  obeyed  the  law,  and 
wrought  out  a  perfect  ransom  for  the  relief  of  His 
people. 

This  relief  might  have  been  immediate. 

It  has  pleased  the  Father  that  it  should  not  be, 
in  three  important  particulars. 

To  wake  in  heaven  after  having  slept  under  the 
frown  of  the  Master  would  not  be  beyond  His  grace, 
but  is  aside  from  His  ordination. 

I.  It  has  pleased  Him,  first,  that  we  shall  be- 
come holy  in  this  world.  Hence,  before  we  go  any 
further  we  say, — If  any  man  shall  become  holy  he 
shall  be  saved,  and  that  as  an  iron  promise  all 
through  this  blessed  revelation  (Is.  Iv.  7  ;  Mic.  vi.  8). 

II.  But  it  has  pleased  Him,  second,  that  we 
shall  hear  the  gospel.  Not  only  are  we  lost  and 
dead,  and  germinating  holiness  must  be  imperatively 
His  gift,  but  He  chooses  to  give  it  exclusively  by  the 
word. 

See  now  how  far  we  have  got.  He  chooses  to 
turn  us  by  a  struggle  in  ourselves.  He  chooses  to 
germinate  before  He  renders  complete.  He  chooses 
to  do  it  formally  in  every  instance  of  adult  life,  and  to 
do  it  through  a  struggle  in  ourselves,  and  to  do  it 
till  we  become  holy,  and  to  make  this  by  statute 
ordinance  the  test  ;  and  therefore  the  promises  that 
he  that  will  cease  to  do  evil  shall  have  his  sins  white 
as  snow  (Is.  i.  18). 


Chap.  IX.]        Faith  not  in  Essence  Moral.  20 1 

III.  But  then,  thirdly  ;  not  only  does  He  give 
this  holiness  by  the  word  ;  that  is,  not  only  does  He 
print  upon  our  hearts  the  law  of  holiness  and  use  as 
His  instrument  the  letter  of  an  understood  redemp- 
tion,— but,  as  an  equally  inexorable  fact.  He  demands 
of  us  an  acknowledgment  of  the  Redeemer. 

Let  us  be  perfectly  understood  now.  We  do 
not  recall  the  other.  We  do  not  recant  that  who- 
ever repents  shall  certainly  be  forgiven  (Luke  xxiv. 
47).  But  we  state  two  modifying  facts,  first,  that  we 
will  not  repent  without  the  word,  and  secondly, 
that  we  will  not  be  helped  to  do  it  except  by  calling 
upon  the  blessed  Redeemer. 

Ho,  then,  we  are  at  the  side  of  Dr.  Hodge  ! 

No  ;  for  there  is  the  first  demand.  We  are  to 
become  holy.  *'  Without  holiness  no  man  shall  see 
the  Lord"  (Heb.  xii.  14). 

We  might  have  got  it  in  our  sleep.  We  might 
have  learned  it  in  the  ten  commandments.  We  might 
have  caught  it  in  our  drink.  There  is  no  limit  to 
God's  power.  But  it  has  pleased  Him  ''  by  the 
foolishness  of  preaching"  (  i  Cor.  i.  21),  and  then 
also  by  our  seeking  to  Christ,  to  give  the  power  that 
lifts  us  to  a  beginning  of  salvation. 

What  then  is  the  history.-*  The  sinner  perishes. 
W^hat  must  he  do  }  He  must  inexorably  repent } 
How  can  he  repent }  Only  by  God's  help.  How 
is  that  help  given  }  Through  the  word.  Does  the 
word  always  convert }  No.  What  is  the  difficulty  1 
He  must  cry  out  to  Christ.  This  now  is  the  circle 
of  the  history.     I  will  never  be  saved  unless  I  re- 


202  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

pent ;  and  I  will  never  repent  unless  I  seek  it  of 
Christ ;  and  faith  is  the  pregnant  word  which  de- 
cribes  the  state  in  which  I  find  my  repentance. 

A  man  impenitent  is  ever  growing  worse.  A 
man  converted  is  ever  growing  better.  To  keep  on 
growing  better  I  must  begin  to  do  so.  To  begin  to 
grow  better  I  must  have  the  help  of  Christ.  To 
have  the  help  of  Christ  I  must  ask  it.  And  to  ask 
it  is  the  beginning  of  that  common  faith  that  ends 
at  last  in  the  faith  that  is  holy. 

Here  are  the  **  Jersey  "  and  the  ''  Central  ;  " — 
here  are  faith  and  repentance.  I  tell  the  man  to 
repent,  and  he  says  he  cannot  do  it.  I  tell  the  man 
to  believe,  and  he  cannot  do  it.  I  tell  him  to  repent, 
but  tell  him  he  never  will  repent  unless  he  believes. 
I  tell  him  to  believe,  but  that  he  never  will  believe 
unless  he  repents.  I  tell  him  that  either,  and  there- 
fore, both,  are  necessary  to  his  forgiveness.  If  he 
falls  back  upon  me  in  his  despair,  I  tell  him  more 
plainly  still  that  it  has  pleased  God  that  He  must 
repent,  but  that  he  cannot  repent  without  getting  it 
from  Christ,  and  there  instantly,  is  our  need  to  ask 
Him  ;  that  He  moves  at  once  at  our  entreaty,  that 
He  quickens  even  our  common  faith,  that  He  kindles 
our  zeal  to  ask  and  moves  us  nearer.  And  if  you 
say,  Why  do  you  tell  me  to  repent  }  I  answer.  Be- 
cause you  may  be  trying  that  too.  It  will  all  bring 
you  nearer.  "■  The  law  was  our  school-master"  (Gal. 
iii.  24).  Repentance  means  tJiinking-aftcr  {iiacJi- 
denken),  i.  e.,  remembering  our  sins.  That  will  all 
help.    Meanwhile  push  your  plea  with  Christ.    I  say, 


Chap.  IX.]       Faith  not  in  Essence  Moral.  203 

it  is  perfectly  simple  that  the  two  rail-tracks  become 
finally  one.  They  come  together  when  you  reach 
the  platform.  Look  under  the  train.  The**  Jersey" 
and  '*  the  Central  "  have  become  a  single  rail.  You 
pushed  repentance.  That  helped.  You  cried  out 
believingly.  God  helped  your  unbelief.  There 
came  at  last  the  moral  vision.  The  two  graces 
married  into  one.  Faith  bloomed  at  length  into 
what  was  holy  :  and  only  then  it  prehended  Christ, 
and  ipso  actn  became  repentance. 

In  the  Repertory  of  1842,  Dr.  Hodge  writes  as 
follows  : — "Truth  and  holiness,  error  and  unholiness 
are  so  inseparable  as  to  be  rather  identical  than 
united.  They  are  different  phases  of  the  same 
thing.  What  is  light  to  the  eye  is  warmth  to  the 
hand.  What  the  mind  apprehends  to  be  true  the 
heart  feels  to  be  good.  Hence  in  Scripture  the 
word  truth  often  stands  for  moral  excellence,  and 
the  belief  of  the  truth  includes  the  love  of  holiness  " 
(p.  143,  Rep.  1842.) 

On  the  contrary,  reviewing  Mr.  Barnes,  he 
rejects  this  whole  moral  view  as  not  at  all  the  criti- 
cal one  : — "  Mr.  Barnes  in  his  subsequent  remarks 
says  expressly,  *  Faith  is  not  the  meritorious  ground 
of  acceptance,  for  then  it  would  have  been  a  work. 
Faith  was  as  much  his  own  act,  as  any  act  of  obedi- 
ence to  the  law.'  And  again,  *  Faith  is  a  mere  instru- 
ment, a  sine  qtca  nan,  that  which  God  has  been  pleased 
to  appoint  as  a  condition  on  which  men  may  be  treat- 
ed as  righteous.'  This  is  all  very  good,  but  he  immedi- 
ately turns  the  whole  matter  round  w^hen  he  pro- 


204  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

ceeds.  '  It  expresses  a  state  of  mind  which  is 
demonstrative  of  love  to  God  ;  of  affection  for  His 
cause  and  character  ;  of  reconciliation  and  friend- 
ship ;  and  is  therefore  that  state  which  He  has 
been  graciously  pleased  to  promise  pardon  and 
acceptance.'  This  gives  a  sadly  erroneous  view  of 
the  relation  of  faith  to  justification.  Faith  is  the 
instrumental  cause  of  justification  because  it  is  the 
means  of  our  becoming  interested  in  the  merit  of 
Christ,  and  not  because  it  is  indicative  of  love  to 
Christ,  or  of  reconciliation  or  friendship." 

**  Faith  is  no  more  demonstrative  of  love  to  God 
than  repentance,  gratitude,  self-denial  or  any  other 
holy  exercise"  (Princeton  Review,  1835,  pp.  297, 
298). 

This  last  nobody  denies,  but  it  is  really  the  k.ey 
to  the  orthodoxy  of  Mr.  Barnes  (I  mean  in  this  one 
case),  and  to  the  heresy  of  his  great  reviewer. 
These  all  do  possess  a  common  essence,  and  there- 
fore it  is  that  they  are  all  saving.  A  man  is  justi- 
fied at  once  if  he  possesses  one  of  them  ;  nay,  never 
justified  till  he  possesses  all  of  them.  And  in  very 
truth  he  began  with  each  of  them,  for  he  possessed 
them  all  when  he  put  his  hand  upon  his  blessed 
Redeemer. 

§  6.  Anything  else  Fetich. 

Fetichism,  when  we  come  to  fathom  it,  is  not 
only  a  thing  which  has  long  ago  dispensed  with 
holiness,  but  which,  as  a  judicial  consequence,  has 
dispensed  with  reason,  and  as  an   eminent  feature 


Chap.  IX.]       Faith  not  in  Essence  Moral.  205 

in  this  last,  has  dispensed  with  reason  in  a  bare  and 
baseless  trusting  to  authority. 

I.  Dr.  Hodge  sells  out  to  Science  in  his  defini- 
tion of  conunon  faitJi. 

I  know  of  nothing  more  forlorn  in  sacred  liter- 
ature. 

The  Roman  Catholic  does  not  leave  himself 
without  a  bottom.  He  tells  us  of  the  authority  of 
the  Church  ;  but  foreseeing  the  difficult  retort  that 
authority  without  base  is  fetich,  he  carefully  fur- 
nishes one.  He  tells  us  that  we  are  to  judge 
beforehand  zvhy  we  are  to  obey  the  Church  (Co. 
of  Trent)  ;  and  that  we  are  to  judge,  besides,  whatv^e 
are  to  obey,  viz.,  to  inspect  the  Church,  and  only  then 
to  give  it  our  eternal  confidence.  The  Roman  Catho- 
lic system,  therefore,  is  consistent  with  itself  But  Dr. 
Hodge  talks  like  Boodh  or  Vishnoo.  We  are  to 
believe  solely  on  authority  (iii.  p.  Gy')  ;  and  though 
he  falls  upon  this  thought  oi  jndging  what  is  true 
(i.  p.  51),  and  goes  so  far  as  to  give  us  2.  jndicinm 
contradictionis  (i.  p.  52)  ;  yet  this  is  one  of  his  re- 
cessions. He  soon  goes  on  to  the  extreme,  that 
we  are  to  believe,  "  not  on  rational  or  philosophic 
grounds,  but  upon  the  authority  of  God "  (iii.  p, 
65).  Hence  we  are  to  have  a  faith  "  not  found- 
ed on  sense,  reason  or  feeling,  but  on  the  author- 
ity of  Him  by  whom  it  is  authenticated  "  (p.  63). 
And  then,  cutting  all  away,  we  are  hung  like  Mo- 
hammed's coffin  : — "  Even  our  assurance  of  the  ve- 
racity of  consciousness  is  of  the  nature  of  faith  " 
(ibid.  p.  48) ;  and,  at  last,  putting  reason  quite  out 


2o6  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book.  V. 

of  the  field,  and  making  a  burlesque  of  what  was 
admitted  of  reason  as  ?i  jndicinni  contradictionis,  we 
read  this : — *'  The  original  data  of  reason  do  not 
rest  on  reason,  but  are  necessarily  accepted  by  rea- 
son on  the  authority  of  what  is  beyond  itself"  (Jbid.'). 
We  shall  return  to  this  (p.  217). 

But  now,  what  chance  have  we  even  with  this 
view  of  common  faith  with  such  men  as  Huxley  ? 
They  have  the  victory  in  the  outset.  Snuffing  out 
all  light  of  reason,  they  can  say  what  they  please. 
Hence  the  talk  that  has  become  so  common,  that 
religion  is  in  one  sphere  and  science  in  another. 
Hence  the  apology  that  is  so  shamefully  pushed, 
that  religion  was  never  meant  to  teach  science. 
Hence  the  inroad,  like  that  upon  the  Roman  Re- 
public, by  which  the  fasces  of  the  tyrant  are  brought 
into  the  very  Senate  Chamber  of  the  people,  before 
they  know  that  their  liberties  are  thoroughly  over- 
thrown. 

Give  the  Huxleyans  all  the  empire  of  reason,  and 
give  theology  nothing  but  that  word  authority,  and 
— still  our  Grand  Head  will  secure  to  us  the  victory ; 
— yet  it  will  only  be  by  judgments  upon  the  Church  ; 
by  crushing  up  this  potsherd  of  implicit  belief;  by 
scourging  the  followers  of  this  false  faith  ;  by  rehab- 
ilitating the  stewardship  of  reason  ;  and  by  suffering 
years  to  pass  with  the  strong  intellects  of  the  world 
debauched,  and  our  abandoned  gifts  employed  in 
crushins:  our  Redeemer. 

For  now  think  of  an  idolater.  Here  is  a  gree- 
gree.     Why  do  I  wear  it  ?     Because  I  am  not  holy. 


Chap.  IX.]       Faith  not  in  Essence  Moral.  207 

Give  us  a  more  proximate  account.  Because  I  am 
not  reasonable.  Give  us  one  nearer  yet.  I  wear  it 
on  authority.  I  wear  it  more  definitely  than  that 
on  the  authority  of  my  Deity.  But  who  is  this 
Deity  t  Ah,  there  you  approach  my  faith.  I  say, 
the  man  who  believes  in  the  authority  of  God,  and 
cuts  loose  from  faith  in  an  entire  supremacy  of  rea- 
son, is  believing  on  no  authority  whatever.  He  is 
not  honoring  God  in  esse.  He  is  believing  in  no 
God.  The  moment  we  cease  to  "  know  what  we 
worship  "  (and  that  knowledge  must  be  a  thing  of 
mind,  moving  as  in  other  things),  we  cease  to  have 
anything  to  worship,  and  we  have  no  right  then  to 
undertake  the  defence  of  Christ, — or  anything. 

For  now  more  definitely  yet :  why  do  I  believe } 
I  believe  on  authority.  Why  do  I  believe  on  au- 
thority.'' Simply  on  authority.  Why,  that.^  Still 
on  authority.  The  very  belief  in  consciousness 
stands  at  last  upon  authority.  And  Jones  from  be- 
hind the  plow  can  come  in^  and  have  all  that  ex- 
plained, and  tell  you  in  an  instant, — My  dear  sir, 
you  have  no  authority  at  all.  You  have  rolled  up 
everything  into  a  ball ;  and  unless  you  can  snatch 
back  reason  from  the  scientists,  you  have  sold  the 
truth  to  its  most  hungry  and  persevering  persecu- 
tors. 

n.  But  if  this  is  the  attitude  of  Dr.  Hodge's 
common  faith,  how  must  it  be  with  his  faith  as 
saving  ? 

I.  In  the  first  place,  it  bewi/ders  the  impen- 
itent. 


2o8  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [BookY. 

His  common  faith  is  a  belief  on  authority.  His 
saving  faith  is  a  belief  on  the  testimony  of  the 
Spirit.  In  either  case  the  testimony  is  out  of  sight, 
and  in  neither  case  will  he  suffer  us  to  bring  in 
sight  the  scheme  of  a  moral  essence. 

I,  following  the  sinner  in  the  very  foot-prints  of 
his  sin,  tell  him  he  must  repent.  I  never  leave  him 
for  a  moment  off  the  scent  of  his  iniquity.  I  tell 
him  he  is  a  lost  wilful  sinner,  and  that  his  helpless- 
ness consists  in  his  disinclination.  I  tell  him  that 
Christ  has  died  and  that  all  righteousness  and  all 
power  to  change  his  nature  has  been  purchased  for 
him  by  the  cross  of  the  Redeemer.  I  tell  him, 
therefore,  that  his  nature  must  be  changed,  and  that 
that  change  in  this  world  becomes  the  signal  and  the 
test  of  his  justification  with  the  Father.  I  tell  him 
that  it  has  pleased  God  not  only  to  change  him  in 
this  world  but  to  do  it  with  his  own  efforts, — to  do 
it  with  the  teaching  of  the  word,  and  to  do  it,  thirdly, 
in  an  acknowledgment  of  Christ,  and  that  faith, 
therefore,  which  is  a  word  that  wraps  all  that  up,  is 
the  necessary  act  for  the  soul's  acceptance. 

I  tell  him,  therefore,  to  speak  to  Christ;  and,  as 
the  essence  of  what  I  define  as  faith  is  simply 
moral,  I  am  able  to  keep  his  mind  clear  by  a  dis- 
tinct differentia.  I  tell  him  that  what  he  wants  is 
holiness.  I  tell  him,  it  makes  no  difference  how 
that  holiness  appears,  it  is  the  test  of  his  salvation. 
It  may  be  hope  (Rom.  viii.  24)  ;  it  may  be  love  (Jo. 
xiv.  23)  ;  it  may  be  wisdom  as  the  old  Faith  called  it 
(Prov.  iii.  13)  ;  it  may  be  zeal  (Num.  xxv.   11-13)  ; 


CHAr.  IX.]       Faith  not  in  Essence  Moral.  209 

it  may  be  good  works  (Jas.  ii.  21)  ;  it  may  be  peni- 
tence (2  Sam.  xii.  13)  ;  it  matters  never  a  word.  It 
may  be  anything  that  will  bear  the  moral  test  (Ec. 
xii.  13).  Only,  God  is  resolute  that  it  must  dawn 
forth  when  the  creature  is  seeking  to  Christ ;  and, 
therefore,  it  must  be  faith  what  time  it  gets  this 
holy  light,  and  what  time  it  has  born  into  itself  all 
these  moral  graces. 

This  is  in  every  part  simple  to  the  sinner.  And 
I  never  attempt  pressing  him  by  a  single  thought 
that  does  not  keep  forcing  upon  him  the  need  of 
his  repentance. 

In  fact,  I  give  him  no  discouragement.  I  do 
not  tell  him  he  must  not  work.  I  do  not  say  as  a 
preacher  did  the  other  day,  that  the  cry,  '*  What 
must  I  do  }  "  was  replied  to  categorically  by  Paul  that 
virtually  he  must  do  nothing.  I  call  upon  him  by 
all  that  is  sacred  to  do  all  of  ten  thousand  things 
that  will  help  in  the  least  toward  a  change  of  heart. 
But  then  I  tell  him,  You  never  will  be  moved  to  re- 
nounce your  wickedness  except  at  the  call  of  Christ ; 
and,  therefore,  keep  caUing  to  Him,  Use  all  these 
means  in  earnest  appeal  to  the  interposition  of  the 
Sanctified  One. 

What  do  I  do,  therefore  t 

I  allow  the  sinner  to  be  saved  by  anything  that 
is  holy.  I  show  him  that  that  is  the  way  the  Bible 
speaks  of  all  holy  attitudes  of  mind  and  virtues  of 
the  heart.  I  lead  him  to  feel  that  holiness  is  a  uni- 
tary state  ;  only  that  it  is  gotten  first  by  seeking  ; 
that    it   is    peremptorily    taught    that    it   must    be 


2IO  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  v. 

sought  from  Christ ;  and,  therefore,  that  this  duty, 
which  must  be  holy  Uke  any  grace,  is  naturally  that 
duty  of  the  lost  which  first  has  birth  in  this  moral 
excellency. 

Now  here  is  no  wavering. 

But  look  at  the  other  view. 

I.  I  teach  a  siujier  with  it. 

He  asks  me  what  it  is  to  believe.  I  tell  him  it 
is  to  trust.  He  asks  me  what  he  is  to  trust.  I  tell 
him,  the  gospel.  He  replies,  he  does  trust  the  gos- 
pel :  he  has  been  taught  all  it  utters  from  his 
mother's  knee.  I  come  to  a  point  where  he  obliges 
me  to  make  some  distinction.  I  tell  him  it  is  on 
the  testimony  of  the  Spirit ;  but  he  soon  burrows 
into  that,  and  obliges  me  to  say  that  all  this  super- 
natural history  of  the  change  is  invisible,  and  can 
be  known  only  by  its  effects.  I  am  confronted, 
therefore,  by  a  need  of  a  test. 

I  tell  him  it  must  be  a  living  faith,  and  that  it 
must  be  followed  by  holiness.  He  begs, — Just  one 
thing  at  a  time  !  He  is  concerned  a  parte  ante,  and 
begs  some  clear  differentia  of  the  act,  inasmuch  as 
what  it  must  be  folloiued  by  is  a  thing  that  concerns 
him  after  it  has  been  achieved. 

Of  course  it  bewilders  him. 

To  do  nothing,  to  feel  nothing,  to  be  very  care- 
ful not  to  work,  to  be  very  certain  only  to  believe, 
and  to  have  faith  intruded  in  a  form  in  which  it  must 
now  appear  that  theologians  cannot  discriminate 
themselves,  is  terrible  either  for  the  unfeehng  or 
the  convicted. 


CnAP.  IX.J      Faith  not  in  Essence  Moral.  2 1 1 

The  unfeeling  will  put  it  on  the  shelf.  In  the 
first  place  they  are  commanded  not  to  work,  and  in 
the  second  they  are  instructed  in  a  superficial 
remedy.  The  convicted,  puzzled  where  they  sought 
the  light,  and  giddy  by  an  indistinguishable  dif- 
ference, are  tided  over  the  time  of  hope,  and  made 
hypocrites  of  by  a  fetich-believing. 

2.  For,  secondly,  this  is  another  charge.  It 
makes  hypocrites. 

Dr.  Hodge  has  no  chapter  in  all  his  work  on  the 
subject  of  Repentance.     This  is  a  startling  fact. 

If  men  are  distinctly  taught  that  repentance 
follows  that  act  by  which  alone  they  can  get  an 
interest  in  Christ,  repentance  will  be  kept  out  of 
sight,  and  they  will  school  their  views  upon  a  belief 
that  is  not  moral. 

3.  Hence,  thirdly,  less  thought  about  the  duty 
of  moral  training.  Men  wall  prefer  to  ''  love  much  " 
(Luke  vii.  47).  Men  will  talk  about  the  danger  of 
the  moralist.  Repentance,  not  being  in  the  very 
eye  of  faith,  need  less  to  be  prepared  for  by  years 
of  tutelage.  And  hence  that  modern  church, — all 
feverish  for  faith, — all  clamorous  for  immediate  re- 
sults,— credulous  on  the  gibbet  and  in  the  jail, — 
but  not  breathing  courage  on  the  mother  in  her 
patience  and  moral  care  ;  so  that  the  revival  of  the 
church,  and  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  in  the  sanc- 
tuary, become  suspected  of  men  as  separated  from 
a  training  for  redemption. 

4.  Lastly,  it  lets  down  the  whole  tone  of  exem- 
plary profession.     Beginning    unmorally,  men    end 


212  FcticJi  ill  Doctrine.  [Book.V. 

that  way.  Tell  a  man  that  he  must  be  born  again, 
and  that  the  faith  that  saves  him  must  go  down  to 
the  bottom  of  that  work,  and  he  will  not  want  to 
profess  it  till  it  has  something  real. 

But  tell  him  he  must  wait  for  all  this, — that  he 
must  believe,  and  then  look  for  repentance, — and 
he  will  maunder  at  first  as  having  no  very  distinct 
idea  of  such  a  believing,  but,  waking  up  as  we 
sometimes  hear  it  expressed  to  the  simplicity  of 
this  act  of  trust,  he  may  do  nothing  more  than  he 
has  always  done  since  he  was  first  taught  about 
Christ,  and  never  trust  with  any  possible  repentance. 

We  are  never  pardoned  except  we  are  born 
again.  We  are  never  born  again  except  in  holiness. 
This  is  the  very  essence  of  the  work.  We  are 
never  visited  by  this  change  unless  as  we  are 
moved  to  seek  for  it  from  Christ.  This  seekins: 
never  mounts  up.  to  a  justifying  faith  till  the  regen- 
erating act,  and  till  faith  like  birth  is  a  sight  of 
holiness. 

CHAPTER  X. 

RATIONALISM   AN    OVER-USE    OF   REASON. 

§  I.  Dr.  Hodge^s  Statement  of  his  oion  Doctrine. 
''By  Rationalism  is  meant  the  system  or  theory 
which  assigns  undue  authority  to  reason  in  matters 
of  religion"  (vol.  i.  p.  34). 

<5»  2.  Dr.  Hodge's  Exposition  of  his  oivii  State7?iefit. 
*'  By  reason  is  not  to  be  understood  the  Logos 


Chap.  X.]    RationalisDi  an  Over-iisc  of  Reason.      213 

as  revealed  in  man,  as  held  by  some  of  the  Fathers, 
and  by  Cousin  and  other  modern  philosophers  ;  nor 
the  intuitional  faculty  as  distinguished  from  the  un- 
derstanding or  the  discursive  faculty.  The  word  is 
taken  in  its  ordinary  sense  for  the  cognitive  faculty, 
that  which  perceives,  compares,  judges,  and  infers" 
(vol.  i.  p.  34). 

It  is  an  advantage  to  start  with  this  degree  of 
precision,  for  there  is  some  ambiguity  in  the  word 
7'eason,  and  to  be  stopped  in  the  midst  of  a  debate 
by  the  cavil  that  reason  means  reasoning,  would  not 
indeed  affect  the  argument,  for  reasoning  is  just  as 
wide  as  reason,  and  **  an  undue  authority "  of  one 
would  exactly  bound  an  undue  authority  of  the 
other ;  but  it  would  take  time  to  show  that.  Dr. 
Hodge  saves  us  from  all  such  task,  and  tells  us  that 
the  word  is  ''  in  its  ordinary  sense."  The  doctrine 
therefore  that  Rationalism  is  an  undue  authority  of 
reason,  means  an  undue  authority  of  ''  the  cognitive 
faculty,"  viz.,  '*  that  which  perceives  and  judges." 

And  how  it  is  an  ''undue  authority"  Dr.  Hodge 
goes  on  to  explain.  "  In  making  the  reception  of 
Christian  doctrine  to  rest  on  reason,  and  not  on  au- 
thority, the  Dogmatist  and  the  Rationalist  are  on 
common  ground  "  (vol.  i.  p.  46).  There  are  no  parts 
of  his  book  in  which  the  shell-like  or  myth-like 
doctrinalism  of  Dr.  Hodge  more  distinctly  appears. 
Then  there  are  truths  that  are  founded  exclusively 
upon  authority,  and  are  not  amenable  at  the  bar  of 
reason  .''  So-  a  Hottentot  might  defend  his  charms  ; 
and  so  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  with  the  same 


2 1 4  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

baseless  self-forgetfulness,  cuts  off  much  private 
judgment  from  the  people.  In  fact  Dr.  Hodge 
uses  the  same  argument, — "The  poor  cannot  be 
Rationalists  "  (p.  41).  That  is  to  say,  unless  faith  is 
founded  on  testimony  and  not  on  reason,  only 
philosophers  could  be  truly  religious.  We  could  al- 
most fancy  that  it  is  Bellarmine  defending  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Church.  Again,  ''  Rationalism  as- 
sumes that  human  intelligence  is  the  measure  of  all 
truth"  (vol.  i.  p.  41).  And  as  Dr.  Hodge  discards 
this,  he  tells  us  what  he  puts  in  its  place.  **  Faith 
is  assent  to  truth  founded  on  testimony  ;  *  credo  qnod 
lion  video!  Knowledge  is  assent  founded  on  the  di- 
rect or  indirect,  the  intuitive  or  discursive,  appre- 
hension of  its  object "  (p.  41).  And  then  he  tells  us 
what  the  great  question  is  ; — ''  The  great  question 
has  ever  been,  whether  we  are  to  receive  truth  on 
authority,  or  only  upon  rational  evidence  "  (iii.  p.  62). 
Lest  any  one  should  say, — Dr.  Hodge  is  only  awk- 
ward in  delivering  his  meaning ;  he  means  that  we 
are  to  believe  as  we  believe  in  gravitation,  unable 
to  comprehend  any  of  the  facts,  but,  on  the  basis 
of  general  evidence  :  Dr.  Hodge  puts  it  out  of  our 
power  to  administer  any  such  palliation.  He  does 
indeed  contradict  himself  (see  p.  41)  in  this  im- 
mediate place.  He  tells  us,  "  Faith  implies  knowl- 
edge;" though  on  the  very  same  page  he  has  set  the 
two  as  opposites,  building  "  faith  "  ''  on  testimony," 
and  building  ''knowledge"  on  the  "apprehension 
of  its  object."  Or  take  another  instance.  "  Faith 
implies  knowledge  ;  "  but  "  our  duty,  privilege   and 


Chap.  X.]     Rationalism  an  Ovcr-usc  of  Reason.     2 1 5 

security  are  in  believing,  not  in  knowing  "  (p.  48).  He 
tells  us,  ''  rationalism  assumes  that  human  intelli- 
gence is  the  measure  of  all  truth  "  (p.  41)  ;  and  then, 
after  naked  sentences  which  declare  that  testimony 
is  all  this,  he  rolls  back,  without  the  least  apparent 
sense  of  inconsistency,  to  sentences  like  these ; — ■ 
*'  The  indispensable  office  of  reason  in  matters  of  faith 
is  the  cognition  or  intelligent  apprehension  of  the 
truths  proposed  for  our  reception  "  (47) ;  and  again, 
— *'  Knowledge  is  essential  to  faith."  This  is  the 
wabble  of  the  machine-pivots,  which,  when  they 
play  to  one  side,  play  back,  ex  necessitate,  too  much 
to  the  other.  Error  cannot  be  steady.  Dr.  Hodge 
means  to  stand  by  testimony,  and,  to  show  that  he 
does,  he  rids  us  of  all  doubt  by  saying,  that  testimony 
is  the  ultimate  support  even  in  reason  (iii.  p.  48). 
How  gross  an  affirmation!  (see  p.  217.)  Nay, 
Testimony  is  the  ultimate  support  even  in  con- 
sciousness !  !  {ibid^  What  an  idol-God  is  such  a 
Jehovah  ! 

And  then  the  likeness  to  the  arrogations  of  the 
Papacy  !  The  faithful  must  believe  on  testimony  ! 
No  matter,  now,  why  we  are  endued  with  reason. 
No  matter  how  it  is  the  voice  of  the  Almighty.  No 
matter  where  we  are  to  be  held  responsible  for  its 
workings.  Our  very  consciousness,  which  Dr. 
Hodge  admits  must  be  the  last  appeal,  is  so  not  the 
last  appeal  that  it  is  founded  itself  on  the  testimony 
of  God.  What  must  the  Huxleyans  think  if  they 
dissect  with  care  all  this  unthrifty  reasoning  1 


2l6  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

5>  3.    The  Doctrine  False. 

Reason,  as  Dr.  Hodge  admits,  is  *'  the  cognitive 
faculty"  (i.  p.  34).  As  we  have  just  seen,  he  makes 
it  as  wide  as  consciousness  (p.  49).  This  is  a  glo- 
rious sense :  and  beyond  a  cavil  it  is  the  only  true 
one.  Reason  is  the  whole  mind  in  its  perceptive  or 
intelligizing  aspect.  Now  what  exercise  of  con- 
sciousness does  not  come  within  the  periphery  of  such 
an  attribute  1  I  see  a  picture.  All  its  harder  traits 
are  under  the  eye  of  reason.  I  feel  a  picture.  That 
is,  I  see  its  exquisite  charm.  Is  not  that  reason } 
Why,  I  can  turn  and  take  it  up  in  the  forceps  of  my 
thought,  and  reason  upon  it  like  any  other  thing. 
Who  tells  me  that  cold  and  heat  may  be  subjects 
for  my  nous,  and  that  beauty  and  gentle  tastes  can 
be  nothing  of  the  kind  1  So  of  holiness.  There  is 
nothing  apprehensible  by  the  mind,  or  to  be  intro- 
spected by  it,  that  is  not  rational.  All  things,  there- 
fore, appeal  to  reason,  and  it  is  the  final  arbiter.  It 
is  that  which  we  shall  have  to  give  account  for  in  the 
day  of  judgment. 

And  there  are  three  stages  of  the  error :  first, 
that  which  supposes  that  there  are  some  things  that 
belong  to  faith,  and  some  things  that  are  within  the 
province  of  reason.  All  things  are  within  the  prov- 
ince of  reason.  Faith  itself  is  an  act  of  reason. 
Reason  is  the  mind  in  one  of  its  aspects.  And 
there  is  no  healthier  sort  than  that  form  of  intellec- 
tion that  counts  all  worship  as  an  act  of  reason,  and 
this  as  the  broader  term  that  includes  all  the  acts  for 
which  we  are  responsible. 


Chap.  X.]    Rationalism  an  Ovcr-tisc  of  Reason.      217 

If  any  one  asks,  Is  this  the  old  way  of  speaking  ? 
Possibly  not ;  but  this  only  shows  how  the  fetich- 
unrationalness  has  grown  upon  the  Church. 

But  if  any  one  asks,  May  it  not  be  a  logomachy, 
therefore  ?  may  it  not  be  just  a  question  of  width  in 
the  term  of  reason  ?  We  say.  No,  most  signally. 
For  what  has  Dr.  Hodge  declared  }  That  reason  is 
based  upon  authority. 

Let  us  recur  to  his  very  words.  *'  The  ultimate 
ground  of  faith  and  knowledge  is  confidence  in  God" 
(vol.  i.  p.  52).  Here  is  the  same  denial  of  truth 
in  sc,  and  the  same  appeal  to  a  mere  Supremacy 
(p.  406).  Again,  **  Even  our  assurance  of  the 
veracity  of  consciousness  is  of  the  nature  of  faith  " 
(vol.  iii.  p.  48).  And  again,  "Reason  itself  must 
at  last  rest  upon  authority"  {ibid.^.  Then  what  a 
foot-ball  it  is.  We  confidently  aver  that  this  bandy- 
ing of  reason  is  a  sign  of  the  region  of  idolatry. 
*'  Because  they  did  not  like,  etc.,  God  gave  them  up," 
etc.  For  observe,  what  is  Dr.  Hodge's  very  last 
appeal }  Incontestibly,  reason.  He  is  forced  to 
call  in  that  stalwart  power  at  the  last  extreme  of 
doctrinal  rejection.  For  listen,  "  The  Scriptures 
never  demand  faith  except  on  the  ground  of 
adequate  evidence  "  (vol.  i.  p.  53).  **  God  requires 
nothing  irrational  of  His  rational  creatures.  He 
does  not  require  faith  without  knowledge,  nor  faith 
in  the  impossible,  nor  faith  without  evidence  "  (p.  55). 
And  again, — "  That  reason  has  the  prerogative  of  the 
jtidicium  conti'adictionis  is  plain  from  the  very  nature 
of  the  case.     It  is  a  contradiction   to  say  that  the 


2 1 S  Fetich  ill  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

mind  can  affirm  that  to  be  true  which  it  sees  cannot 
by  possibiUty  be  true.  From  the  very  constitution 
of  our  nature  we  are  forbidden  to  believe  the  impos- 
sible "  (p.  52).  How  unhappy  to  represent  the 
Church  in  the  most  important  recent  theologizing 
by  saying  immediately  after  this,  "  The  ultimate 
ground  of  faith  and  knowledge  is  confidence  in 
God." 

But  more  unhappy,  perhaps,  the  intrinsic  nature 
of  the  doctrine.     Here  will  be  our  second  stage. 

What  is  authority  ? 

Dr.  Hodge  will  say,  The  authority  of  God. 

But  look  ye  here, — that  in  principio  is  ink  and 
calf-skin. 

What  makes  it  a  divine  authority } 

In  the  first  jjlace,  Who  is  God  }  In  the  second 
place.  What  cares  He  for  this  Book  }  Dr.  Hodge 
utterly  forgets  the  decisiveness  of  reason  in  picking 
out  all  the  canon. 

Then,  as  a  third  stage, — How  do  I  know  the 
obligation  of  authority  t 

It  is  easy  for  Dr.  Hodge  to  say.  Not  reason,  but 
authority.  But  what  is  authority  1  The  pilgrim 
casts  himself  under  the  car  of  Juggernaut  in  a  trust 
to  authority.  Is  that  the  sort  of  authority  that  Dr. 
Hodge  would  plead  .^  The  Papist  eats  the  flesh  of 
Christ  on  the  faith  of  authority.  Is  that  sufficient  .'* 
Does  not  authority  itself  stand  in  judgment }  And 
are  we  not  to  settle  its  claims  t  And  is  it  not  a 
sin  in  all  these  heathen  tribes  to  do  the  very  thing 
that  Dr.  Hodge  appoints,  viz.,  to  build  our  faith,  not 


CiiAF.  X.]    Rationalism  an  Ovcr-7tse  of  Reason.      2 1 9 

upon  reason,  but  upon  the  dictates  of  a  mere 
authority? 

To  say  that  the  sense  is  that  we  must  beUeve 
doctrines  without  understanding  them,  is  only  to 
stuff  rubbish  in  our  works,  for  what  does  any  angel 
beheve  except  what  he  does  not  understand  ? 

Dr.  Hodge  ought  not  to  waver  in  that  way. 

Is  or  is  not  the  gospel  rational }  If  not,  then  we 
ought  to  give  it  up,  for  Dr.  Hodge  himself  says  we 
are  not  bound  to  believe  the  irrational  (vol.  i.  55). 
If  it  is,  we  ought  to  run  up  our  flag  to  the  peak. 
Religion  can  hold  her  own  before  the  world.  We 
ought  to  crush  the  scientists  by  answering  them. 
Not  always  in  each  particular  case  (for  we  do  not 
hold  with  Dr.  Hodge  that  we  are  at  liberty  to  disbe- 
lieve what  contradicts  reason)  but  by  the  force  of  a 
general  aggregate.  If  ninety  out  of  a  hundred 
points  are  in  favor  of  religion,  I  wait  fbr  the  ten.  If 
the  vast  volume  of  the  proof  is  rational  and  on  the 
side  of  Christ,  I  bear  with  a  trifle  even  if  it  contra- 
dict my  senses. 

^  4.    The  Mischiefs  of  Believing  Otherzvise. 

We  live  in  an  age  when  infidelity  is  firing  all 
her  volleys  against  the  truth.  It  is  not  Science  :  it 
is  Satan.  We  agree  with  Paul,  that  men  are  ''con- 
tentious, and  do  not  obey  the  truth,"  but  with  the 
baldest  prejudice  actually  prefer  to  ''obey  unright- 
eousness;"' and,  therefore,  we  observe  them  with 
the  greatest  eagerness  obeying  the  theory  of  to-day, 
in  preference  to  the  splendid    system  of  an  estab- 


220  Fetich  in  Doctri7ie.  [Book  V. 

lished  gospel.  What  does  the  Church  do  ?  Why, 
many  times,  as  in  the  instance  of  GaUleo,  nom'ish 
infidels  by  a  contempt  of  reason ;  many  times,  as  in 
the  instance  of  Voltaire,  nourish  infidels  by  an  ab- 
surd authority. 

The  same  hand-writing  appears  in  our  day. 

We  utterly  protest  against  any  syllable  in  Dog- 
matic Theology  that  sets  up  authority  bare  of  rea- 
son. It  is  fetich.  It  is  God,  no  God.  It  is  au- 
thority with  no  shadow  of  a  foot.  It  is  a  barring 
out,  where  there  should  have  been  the  very  finest 
authority,  of  reason.  And  therefore,  Dr.  Hodge,  in 
a  day  of  risk,  has  actually  taken  away  the  shelters 
of  the  truth,  and  made  the  Church  weak  just  in 
the  spot  of  her  worst  necessity. 

Witness  how  these  points  in  the  truth's  enclos- 
ure are  seized  upon  by  these  men  by  a  sort  of  nat- 
ural instinct.  Not  only  do  they  deride  authority 
the  moment  it  is  divorced  from  the  support  of 
reason  ;  not  only  do  they  declare  (and  justly  too) 
that  it  is  then  utterly  incapable  for  either  testimony 
or  miracle  ;  but  they  seize  upon  some  of  the  ten 
points  we  have  given,  and  turn  them,  as  it  is  sad  to 
see,  against  the  belied  religion. 

Mill  says: — **  If  instead  of  the  'glad  tidings' 
that  there  exists  a  Being  in  whom  all  the  excel- 
lences which  the  highest  human  mind  can  conceive 
exist  in  a  degree  inconceivable  to  us,  I  am  in- 
formed that  the  world  is  ruled  by  a  being  whose 
attributes  are  infinite,  but  what  they  are  we  cannot 
learn,  nor  what  are  the   principles  of  his   govern- 


CiiAP.  X.]   Rationalism  an  Ovcr-2isc  of  Reason.      221 

ment,  except  that  'the  highest  human  moraUty 
which  we  are  capable  of  conceiving '  does  not  sanc- 
tion them ;  convince  me  of  it,  and  I  will  bear  my 
fate  as  I  may.  But  when  I  am  told  that  I  must 
believe  this,  and,  at  the  same  time,  call  this  being 
by  the  names  which  express  and  affirm  the  highest 
human  morality,  I  say,  in  plain  terms,  that  I  will 
not.  Whatever  power  such  a  being  may  have  over 
me,  there  is  one  thing  which  he  shall  not  do  :  he 
shall  not  compel  me  to  worship  him.  I  will  call  no 
being  good  who  is  not  what  I  mean  when  I  apply 
that  epithet  to  my  fellow-creatures  ;  and  if  such  a 
being  can  sentence  me  to  hell  for  not  so  calling 
him,  to  hell  I  will  go"  {^'  Exam,  of  Ham.^'  Boston 
Ed.,  vol.  i.  p.  131). 

Oh,  how  sad  the  exhibition,  when  such  a  re- 
creant as  Mill  puts  himself  more  right,  even  for  an 
instant,  than  the  Church,  as  to  the  attributes  of  the 
Almighty ! 

And  listen  to  Spencer,  too, — ''  He  may  think  it 
needless,  as  it  is  difficult,  to  conceal  his  repugnance 
to  a  creed  which  tacitly  ascribes  to  The  Unknow- 
able a  love  of  adulation  such  as  would  be  despised 
in  a  human  being.  .  .  .  There  will  perhaps  escape 
from  him  an  angry  condemnation  of  the  belief  that 
punishment  is  a  divine  vengeance  .  .  .  and  that 
conduct  is  truly  good  only  when  it  is  due  to  a  faith 
whose  openly-professed  motive  is  other-worldliness" 
{^'  First  Principles','  ^^.  120,  121). 

Bad  morals  are  like  the  weak  joints  of  a  rheumatic. 
The  first  sour  wind  that  blows  will  instantly  rack 


222  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

them.  These  men  find  out  what  is  putrid  in  reHgion, — 
as  the  vulture,  carrion  ;  and  down  to  that  spot  in  the 
landscape  will  be  the  first  swoop  of  the  foul  wing. 
Hence  the  value  of  infidels  as  scavenger-birds. 

A  father,  learning  from  his  son  that  by  reading 
Spencer  his  College  days  are  unsettling  him  on 
the  subject  of  religion,  writes  back  to  him — what.'* 
That  he  must  ask  help  from  a  higher  source,  better 
to  understand  such  literature  ?  that  he  must  read 
more  diligently  the  Bible,  and  come  with  more  im- 
mediate faith  to  the  help  of  the  Redeemer.^  Alas  ! 
possibly  !— no  doubt  he  may  have  told  him  all  this  ; 
but  the  conspicuous  reply  which  reached  others,  and 
was  talked  of  in  the  place,  was  that  he  must  sub- 
due HIS  REASON.  Now  that  layman  in  the  Church 
has  learned  so  to  talk  from  the  teaching  of  theology. 

So  wrought  not  Christ.  He  took  care  of  reason, 
and  means  to  appeal  to  it  in  the  Day  of  Judgment. 
The  daintiest  web  of  reason  could  not  be  subtler 
than  that  with  which  He  announced  His  advent. 
He  did  not  come  barely  with  authority,  but  exerted 
Himself  to  prove  it.  He  chose  His  witnesses.  He 
scattered  them  over  the  earth.  He  shot  a  ray  of 
light  first  into  Persia,  and  the  Magi  of  the  East 
were  made  to  expect  His  coming.  He  sent  them 
to  Herod.  He  sent  Herod  to  the  Sanhedrim.  He 
stirred  up  all  classes  of  society.  That  the  lowest 
might  be  reached,  He  heralded  in  a  still  bright- 
er way  the  shepherds.  We  see  the  same  hand- 
writing at  His  death.  As  His  birth  was  accomplished 
where  the  ''  whole  world  "  was  being  taxed,  so  His 


Chap.  X.]    Rationalism  an  Ovcr-jisc  of  Reason.       223 

rising-again,  when  the  whole  world  was  gathered  at 
Jerusalem.  The  daintiest  care  was  manifested 
with  the  evidence.  Was  there  an  earthquake,  it 
was  at  a  crowded  passover.  Was  the  vail  of  the 
Temple  rent  in  twain,  it  was  on  that  hour  of  the 
year  when  the  finger  of  the  Priest  w^as  about  to 
push  it  aside  and  enter.  Might  there  be  a  scandal 
of  deceit  t  The  Jews  themselves  were  to  prevent 
it.  They  made  it  certain  that  the  rising  from  the 
dead  should  be  attested  ;  for  they  made  everything 
sure,  sealing  the  stone,  and  setting  a  watch.  All 
through  the  Augustan  w^orld  God  had  arranged  to 
give  the  most  honor  to  an  appeal  to  reason,  and,  in 
fact,  the  whole  Bible,  rendered  in  Greek,  and  copied 
in  every  synagogue,  was  open  to  the  inquisition  of 
the  world  ;  and  Luke  distinctly  tells  us  that  one 
synagogue  was  more  noble  than  that  in  Thessa- 
lonica,  in  that  they  ''  searched  the  Scriptures  daily," 
and.  that  not  to  submit  to  them  on  a  mere  authority- 
faith,  but  boldly,  "  whether  those  things  were  so  " 
(Acts  xvii.  11). 

Rationalism,  therefore,  is  not  an  ''  undue  au- 
thority of  reason."  There  cannot  be  such  a  thing. 
Religion  appeals  to  all  the  reason  we  can  muster 
up, — and  more.  Religion  appeals  to  nothing  else 
within  us  but  our  very  strongest  reason.  And  if  a 
man  fails  at  the  day  of  final  assize,  the  first  arrow 
that  will  be  shot  will  be  one  that  shall  convince  his 
reason  ;  the  first  pang  under  which  he  shall  cry  out, 
will  be  under  a  sense  of  his  extreme  irrationalness  ; 
and  the  strongest  conviction  that  he  shall  have  will 


224  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

be,  that  conscience  and  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit 
were  all  and  every  part  of  them  in  the  domain  of 
reason. 

§  5,  The  Scriptures  that  Dr.  Hodge  quotes. 

First,  all  those  Scriptures  that  teach  that  *'  the 
world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God"  (i  Cor.  i.  21). 
This  does  not  mean  that  the  world  had  too  much 
wisdom,  but  too  little.  A  painter's  not  admiring 
his  art  does  not  show  that  reason  is  not  in  play,  bu^ 
a  deficient  reason.  His  reason  lacks  that  aesthetic 
nous  which  is  just  as  much  its  province  when  it 
possesses  it,  as  a  sense  of  cold,  or  a  sense  of  truth, 
or  a  sense  of  power,  or  any  other  sense  of  which  it 
may  judge  or  reason. 

Second,  all  those  texts  which  speak  of  truth 
upon  authority ;  all  those  texts  which  are  preluded 
by  a  ''  Thus  saith  the  Lord."  Of  course  we  accept 
them  as  duly  as  Dr.  Hodge  ;  in  fact  a  little  more  so  ; 
for  we  are  not  so  ready  to  reject  them  w^hen  they 
contradict  our  senses  (i.  p.  60).  But  we  receive 
them  on  the  authority  of  reason.  We  let  our  minds 
reach  down  and  touch  bottom  at  once,  which  Dr. 
Hodge  is  slow  to  do.  And  instead  of  being  forced 
to  ruin  everything  by  admissions  at  the  very  last  as 
to  the  judicitun  contradictiojiis,  we  remember  that 
at  the  beginning,  and  we  say,  All  things  we  re- 
ceive on  reason.  We  receive  God  on  reason.  So 
He  teaches  us  to  do.  We  receive  authority  on  rea- 
son. So  it  is  reasonable  to  do.  We  receive  this 
calf-skin  on  reason.     Nothing  else  could  judge  it  : 


Chap.  X.]    Rationalism  an  Over-use  of  Reason.     225 

but  we  infer  after  careful  reasoning  that  it  has  the 
authority  of  God.  And  then  if  He  bestows  His 
Spirit,  we  receive  that  into  reason.  It  is  reason 
that  He  lights  up  with  a  forgotten  and  dishonored 
light,  and  we  refuse  to  compare  as  though  different 
things,  faith  and  a  human  reason,  and  choose  rather 
to  speak  of  a  reason  blinded  and  imperfect,  and  a 
reason  restored  to  itself  by  the  finger  by  which  it 
was  first  created. 

Again,  we  have  all  those  passages  which  speak 
of  the  sinner's  foolishness.  Paul  had  learned  about 
this  in  the  synagogue  {see  Solomon  passim).  When, 
therefore,  he  says,  "The  wisdom  of  this  world  is 
foolishness  Avith  God"  (i  Cor.  iii.  19;  or  when  he 
says,  "  The  preaching  of  the  cross  is  to  them  that 
perish,  foolishness  "  (i  Cor.  i.  18);  or  when  he  says, 
"  If  any  man  among  you  seemeth  to  be  wise  in  this 
world,  let  him  become  a  fool  that  he  may  be  wise  " 
(i  Cor.  iii.  18), — he  means,  not  wise  really  or  j^w^/* 
ipso,  but  wise  qiwad  this  fallen  world ;  he  means,  not 
wise  in  the  sense  of  rational,  for  even  Dr.  Hodge 
would  admit  that  was  not  the  case;  he  means, 
therefore,  not  wise  at  all,  but  foolish  ;  and  means 
only  that  a  man  must  find  out  that  he  is  a  fool,  be- 
fore his  reason  can  ascend  to  the  highest  wisdom. 

§  6.  Injury  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Teaching  to  Dr.  Hodge 
himself. 
Dr.  Hodge  spent  a  student's  year   in  Germany. 
He  found  Germany,  now   half  a  century   ago,    all 
alive  in  its  smaller  and  purer  church  against  the  en- 
croachments of  Neology.    Just  as  another  colleague 


226  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

in  his  earlier  training  was  in  a  city  oppressed  by 
Prelacy,  so  Dr.  Hodge  received  a  bent  through  his 
whole  polemic  life  against  the  assaults  of  Ration- 
alism. In  declining  years  he  has  turned  to  Meta- 
physics as  more  of  an  ally,  and  to  Science  as  a  thing 
to  be  understood ;  but  all  through  his  intermediate 
life  he  has  denied  that  Metaphysics  was  a  system, 
or  that  it  was  capable  of  progression  under  the  con- 
duct of  the  human  mind. 

High  thought  has  revenged  itself  for  the  con- 
tempt. 

And  this  in  two  ways  appears  as  we  search  the 
old  and  the  new  in  these  final  volumes. 

In  the  old  he  is  the  strong  theologer,  broad  and 
lucid,  and  most  dexterous  in  written  debate,  and  yet 
always  disappointing  the  mind  that  goes  deeply 
after  the  seeds  of  things  ;  leaving  his  threads  untied- 
up,  and  excusing  himself  by  appeal  to  the  mysteries 
that  become  the  gospel ;  in  the  new,  betraying  the 
old  man's  work ;  we  mean,  respectfully,  the  hand  of 
an  aged  convert ;  never  having  respected  Meta- 
physics ;  lately  drawn  to  it ;  never  having  vested 
much  in  Science  ;  lately  moved  by  it  as  endanger- 
ing the  Church  ; — and,  therefore,  offering  it  in  that 
scrap-book  form  uniting  badly  with  his  older  work, 
and  giving  the  reasoning  of  the  skeptic  in  clearer 
because  more  studied  paragraphs  than  his  own  too 
late  attempts  to  recover  ground  in  the  regions  of 
their  reasoning. 

Hence  passages  all  through  the  work  of  Dr. 
Hodge  that  injure  it  Vv^ith  scientific  reasoners. 


CiiAr.  X.]    Rationalisui  an  Ovcr-7Lse  of  Reason.      227 

Take  the  first  sentence.  *'  In  every  science  there 
are  two  factors  ;  facts  and  ideas  ;  or  facts  and  the 
mind"  (vol.  i.  p.  i).  Or  take  the  second,  ''Science 
is  more  than  knowledge."  Or  take  the  fourth, 
"  The  facts  of  astronomy,  chemistry,  or  history  do 
not  constitute  the  science  of  those  departments  of 
knowledge."  It  is  such  sentences  that  quietly  wave 
back  just  as  they  are  setting  out,  that  very  class  of 
readers  that  Dr.  Hodge  would  prefer  to  secure  and 
influence. 

So  on  the  fourth  page, — "  There  are  laws  of 
nature  (forces)  which  are  the  proximate  causes  of 
natural  phenomena." 

On  the  634th  page  he  says, — "  Confidence  in 
human  testimony  is  founded  on  a  law  of  our  na- 
ture"(!).  This  he  gives  as  an  answer  to  Hume's 
celebrated  argument  on  miracles. 

He  says  that  he  finds  in  the  Old  Testament  that 
"  Sheol  is  represented  as  the  general  receptacle  or 
abode  of  departed  Spirits,  who  were  there  in  a  state 
of  consciousness  ;  some  in  a  state  of  misery  ;  others 
in  a  state  of  happiness  "  (vol.  iii.  p.  717), — thus  set- 
tling at  a  stroke  all  the  question  why  the  Old 
Testament  has  no  such  reference  at  all. 

As  an  ethical  truth  he  tells  us,  that  "  the  guilt 
of  sin  is  infinite  in  the  sense  that  we  can  set  no 
limits  to  its  turpitude,  or  to  the  evil  that  it  is  adapt- 
ed to  produce  ;  "  and  then,  that  "  The  crucifixion 
of  Christ  was  the  greatest  crime  ever  committed  " 
(vol.  i.  544),  not  informing  us  which  of  Christ's 
crucifiers  he  alludes  to,  and  then  not  saying  how 


228  FeticJi  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

an  evil  can  be  infinite,  and  yet  an  instance  of  it  the 
greatest  one  that  ever  appeared. 

Steady  assaults  upon  reason  produce  such  re- 
actions. We  see  it  in  certain  mannerisms.  Dr. 
Hodge  assails  opponents  by  an  appeal  to  univer- 
sals.  For  example,  '  Such,'  referring  to  the  doc- 
trine he  supports,  *  has  been  the  faith  of  the  Re- 
formed Church  in  all  ages.'  This,  when  he  is  re- 
plying to  a  large  body  of  the  Reformed  Church  at 
the  \*-ery  moment.     It  is  a  feature  of  his  book. 

So  an  appeal  to  consciousness.  He  makes 
it  till  it  comes  up  by  a  sort  of  instinct  in  every 
case. 

Not  only  is  God  Himself  a  matter  of  conscious- 
ness (i.  p.  191),  and  cause  and  effect  a  matter  of 
consciousness  (i.  p.  210),  and  the  immaterial  na- 
ture of  the  soul  a  matter  of  consciousness  (i.  p.  36), 
but  he  comes  at  last  to  instances  like  these, — 
''  It  would  be  no  more  irrational  to  pronounce 
Homer  and  Newton  idiots  than  to  set  down  Isaiah 
and  Paul  as  either  impostors  or  fanatics.  It  is  as 
certain  as  any  self-evident  truth  that  they  were 
wise,  good,  sober-minded  men  "  (i.  p.  37).  And  I 
might  choose  Balaam  or,  if  I  pleased,  Solomon,  or, 
in  lesser  degree,  Buddha  or  Confutzee,  or  even 
Mohammed,  and  might  assert  the  same  point  with 
an  approximate  degree  of  rationalness.  Again, — 
*•'  It  is  intuitively  true  that  sin  ought  to  be  punish- 
ed "  (ii.  p.  539).  Much  of  these  three  volumes  is 
built  gratis  on  just  such  assertion.  And  again, 
what  follows  }     "They  therefore  know,  that  without 


Chap.  X.]    Rationalism  an  Ovci--nsc  of  Reason,     229 

a  satisfaction  to  justice  sin  cannot  be  pardoned. 
This  conviction  lies  undisturbed  at  the  bottom  of 
every  human  breast"  (ibid.').  Men's  instincts  lie  in 
another  direction,  and  Dr.  Hodge  himself,  when 
pushed,  takes  refuge  in  atoning  mystery  (ii.  p.  479). 
And  yet  now  while  on  another  beat  he  seizes  this 
repeated  support.  Sacrifice  is  intuitive.  **  With- 
out satisfaction  sin  cannot  be  pardoned.  This  con- 
viction, sooner  or  later,  never  fails  to  reveal  itself 
with  irrepressible  force  to  the  reason  and  the  con- 
science "  (jbid.').  And  again,  God's  Providence  ! 
A  denial  of  it  "  contradicts  the  testimony  of  our  mor- 
al nature.  The  relation  in  which  we  stand  to  God 
as  that  relation  reveals  itself  in  our  consciousness, 
implies  that  we  are  constantly  in  the  presence  of  a 
God  who  takes  cognizance  of  our  acts,  orders  our 
circumstances,  and  interferes  constantly  for  our  cor- 
rection or  protection"  (i.  p.  35).  All  this,  mark 
you,  a  man's  consciousness.  He  is  conscious  even 
that  a  sparrow  does. not  fall  to  the  ground  without 
our  Father  (ibid.').  Again, — "  men  must  enter 
that  gate  [and  he  means  the  gate  of  death]  conscious 
that  they  have  within  them  an  imperishable  life  "  (i. 
p.  36), — of  course  meaning,  conscious  of  immortali- 
ty, another  great  doctrine  ;  and  then,  propounding 
still  another,  he  adds, — *'  life  combined  with  all  the 
elements  of  perdition  ;  "  and,  again, — "  Is  it  not 
self-evident  that  immortal  sinners  need  some  one  to 
answer  the  question,  What  must  I  do  to  be  saved  } " 
A  thinker  who  decries  reason,  and  postpones  it  to  a 
weird  authority,  lifts  it  right  up  in  its  highest  act, 


230  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

viz.,  a  decisive  consciousness,  and  makes  it  the 
facile  prop  of  lialf  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel. 

Three  cases  more  : — 

*'  It  is  intuitively  true  to  all  who  have  eyes  to 
see,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  son  of  God^  and  that 
His  gospel  is  the  wisdom  of  God  and  the  power  of 
God  unto  salvation"  (i.  p.  260). 

"The  doctrine  of  concnrsns''  (adopted  by  Au- 
gustine, and  taught  by  Turrettin  and  many  of  his 
school)  '*  contradicts  the  consciousness  of  men " 
(i.  p.  604).  And  then,  once  more,  — ''  Men  no 
more  need  to  be  taught  that  there  is  a  God,  than 
they  need  to  be  taught  that  there  is  such  a  thing 
as  sin"  (i.  p.  199). 

^  7.  A7-guinent  from  Reason. 

The  worn-out  pivot-hole  of  a  machinery  that 
once  moved  with  a  quiet  that  scarce  shook  the 
building,  is  a  fine  emblem  of  the  theologizing  that 
has  grown  to  be  habitual  in  the  instance  of  Dr. 
Hodge.  We  need  not  stand  and  cavil  and  say, 
Here  was  the  pivot-hole,  or.  Here  the  true  motion 
ought  to  have  been  kept.  It  is  enough  to  prove 
what  has  happened  simply  to  listen  to  the  shake, 
and  hear  the  factory  reverberating  to  the  changes 
of  the  stroke. 

Dr.  Hodge  never  tarries  a  moment  on  a  single 
beat. 

Scarcely  has  he  told  us  that  ''  the  knowledge  of 
God  is  innate"  (i.  p.  191),  before  he  is  spinning  off 
upon  the  question,  "  How  do  we  form  the  idea  of  God  .-^ " 


CiiAr.  X.]    Rational  ism  an  Ovcr-nsc  of  Reason.     231 

(P-  339-)  'The  phrase,  **  The  will  of  God  is  the 
ground  of  moral  obligation "  (i.  p.  405)  seems  to 
throw  him  to  the  other  extremity  of  thought, — ''  He 
cannot  make  right  wrong  or  wrong  right"  (p.  406). 
These  are  the  greatest  defects  that  can  occur  in 
any  system.  And  really,  the  argument  from  reason 
in  the  present  instance  is  easiest  made  by  incor- 
porating in  it  another  section,  viz., — 

\  8.  Dr.  Hodge's  Contradiction. 

Let  us  be  exact. 

In  theologizing,  the  ultimate  appeal  is  to  author- 
ity, or  to  reason. 

Dr.  Hodge  says,  To  authority. 

Now  we  might  go  into  that  direct,  and  show 
what  was  bewildering  his  mind. 

In  Germany  men  were  rejecting  the  Trinity 
because  they  did  not  understand  it.  Did  that  make 
it  less  amenable  to  reason }  In  German}^  men  have 
rejected  gravitation  because  they  did  not  understand 
it.  We  might  throw  the  two  facts  together,  and 
show  that  reason  is  equally  in  place  ;  that  she  never 
abdicates  her  seat,  and  that  all  the  dicta  she  has 
made  are  precisely  thus,  viz.,  the  acceptance  of  what 
she  never  understood. 

But  Dr.  Hodge  saves  us  this  thought.  He  sets 
up  the  error.  Faith's  appeal  is  to  authority  (iii. 
p.  63).  He  makes  it  impossible  to  misunderstand 
him  ;  —  Even  consciousness  ultimately  appeals  for 
its  veracity  to  faith  (iii.  p.  48) ;  and  when  that 
thought  has  been  made  as  naked  as  it  can,  he  top- 


232  Fetich  in  Doctrine.  [Book  V. 

pies  it  over  at  a  stroke,  and  tells  us  the  jiidicinni 
contradictionis  is  at  last  with  reason  (i.  p.  52). 

^  9.    The   Whole  Systeju  Fetich. 

Why  does  not  Dr.  Hodge  sail  under  the  Duke 
of  Norfolk  ? 

He  may  say,  He  does  not  believe  in  Alacoque. 

But  why  not  ? 

He  may  say,  It  is  all  a  farce,  and  disgusting  in 
the  Nineteenth  Century. 

But  why }  It  is  done  by  authority.  The  appeal 
is  twofold,  first  to  God,  and  then  to  His  greatest 
Church,  a  Church  so  real  that  Dr.  Hodge  would  give 
to  it  deeds  of  lands  in  the  protoplasm  of  our  teem- 
ing West  {see  Letter  to  R.  R.  Directors). 

Why  not  follow  it  into  France  .'' 

Dr.  Hodge  will  say, — The  ver}^  proposition  is 
absurd. 

And  we  see  at  a  glance  that  authority  is  noth- 
ing at  all  till  we  know  what  authority  it  really  is. 
The  Bible  is  boiled  and  pressed-out  rags  ;  God  is 
Buddha  or  Olympic  Jove  ;  authority  is  an  old  wives' 
fable, — till  reason  has  taken  it  in  hand,  and  told 
which  Bible  to  take,  and  which  God  is  the  true 
Almighty.  We  are  not  even  bound  to  take  any,  till 
reason  has  told  us  that  fact,  and  been  the  foundation 
of  our  whole  religiousness. 

This  life  spent  in  assaulting  reason  has  tinged 
the  Church  with  a  dangerous  superstition.  Our 
cause  should  climb  out  of  it.  Beginning  with  a 
lapse  of  holiness  we  have  let  reason  go,  as  in  the 


Chap.  X.]  Rationalism  an  Ovcr-iisc  of  Reason.       233 

Old  World  picture  (Rom.  i.  28).  Possessing  the 
learning  of  Egypt,  let  us  not  possess  her  cats  and 
crocodiles.  Let  us  remember  that  religion  is  of 
God,  but  that  it  is  also  for  and  by  man  ;  that  it  inhab- 
its all  his  reason  ;  that  it  appeals  to  all  his  con- 
science ;  that  it  inspires  all  his  aftection  ;  and  that 
these  three  things  together  are  not  man  in  a  jangling 
trinity,  but  man  in  different  lights,  reason  and  con- 
science and  affection  being  the  one  mind  as  a  reve- 
lation of  the  Most  High. 

The  testimony  of  the  Spirit  we  hold  as  he  does, 
but  does  he  not  immediately  tell  us  that  it  is  not  vis- 
ible save  in  its  eftects  }  That  Spirit  restores  our 
reason.  That  reason  is  our  inward  spirit.  'That 
spirit  is  all  our  nature.  It  is  not  to  be  divided  into 
halves,  or  pitted  against  faith  or  piety.  It  is  that 
which  is  pious,  and  that  which  has  faith.  And  the 
man  who  ''  subdues  his  reason "  may  start  for 
France  to-morrow;  he  is  the  Greek, believing Priaps  ; 
he  is  the  Latin,  thumb-screwing  Galileo ;  he  is  be- 
draggling what  he  ought  to  pick  up,  and  bedrugging 
the  whole  of  himself  to  get  himself  ready  to  get  re- 
ligion. 


BOOK  VI. 

FETICH     IN     ORDER. 
CHAPTER   I. 

AS    RITUALISM    SHRIVELS    DOCTRINE,  SO  DOCTRINALISM    SHRIVELS 
THE    CHURCH. 

When  a  Church  holds  up  hoHness  as  the  high- 
est end  of  God  and  as  the  chief  object  of  all  His 
people,  it  keeps  rite  and  doctrine  both  in  place. 
It  is  the  juice  that  animates  the  tree.  But  when, 
for  any  cause,  holiness  steals  away,  rite  and  doc- 
trine both  become  a  shell ;  and  the  Church,  as  for  his- 
torical causes  it  has  become  attached  to  either, 
thickens  that  one, — lays  an  accent  upon  it,  so  that 
rite  or  doctrine  becomes  its  superstitious  means  of 
arriving  among  the  blest.  Either,  thus  exaggerated, 
shrivels  and  neglects  the  other.  The  Papists,  the 
great  Ritualists,  shrivelled  doctrine  so  that  Luther 
had  to  expand  it  afresh.  And  we,  if  we  are  ad- 
vanced as  Doctrinalists,  have  shrivelled  rite.  There 
are  signs  of  this  in  the  modern  Church.  We  talk 
of  societies  when  we  mean  organized  Churches. 
We  talk  of  a  demission  of  the  ministry,  when  it  is 
the  solemn  office  that  Christ  instituted  among  men 
(see  Princeton  Rev.,  1859,  p.  369).  We  plan  a 
rotation  of  the  eldership.     We  seize  upon  an  Amer- 

234 


CiiAP.  I.]  Docirinalisvi  and  the  Idea  of  the  CJnirch.  235 

ican  creed,-'-'  and  upon  elders  as  the  ''representa- 
tives of  the  people."  Every  thing  that  makes  the 
Church  an  organized  authoritative  court,  -represent- 
ing Christ  on  earth,  put  in  being  by  His  own  hand, 
and  made  successive  by  directions  of  His  lips,  it  is 
the  tendency  of  modern  Protestantism  to  ignore. 
Given  a  healthy  Church,  instituted  by  Christ,  de- 
fined in  external  office,  assured  by  solemn  promise, 
built  upon  Peter,  that  is,  avoiding  the  absurdities  of 
the  Pope,  built  up  of  living  men ;  as  Paul  expresses 
it,  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets  ; 
and  as  Christ  times  it,  the  first,  Simon  which  is  called 
Peter,  giving  honor  to  that  favored  disciple  as  being 
the  first  to  be  laid  in  the  building, — Ritualism  and 
Doctrinalism  take  their  departure  from  it  by  differ- 
ent poles.  Ritualism  takes  Peter  for  Christ,  and 
Church  order  for  grace,  and  Church  office  as  the 
channel  of  salvation  ;  and  Doctrinalism  is  at  the 
stark  extreme.  Ritualism  thickens  the  Church,  and 
lays  the  accent  upon  it,  and  makes  the  idol  out  of 
the  external  shell.  Doctrinalism  upsets  it  alto- 
gether. It  has  its  idol  at  another  pole.  It  denies 
the  externality  of  the  Church,  I  mean  as  vital  to  it 
(Princeton  Rev.  vol.  xxv.  p.  250).  It  makes  light  of  a 
pattern  as  having  been  shown  in  the  Mount ;  and 
whereas  Paul  warns  us  to  *'  lay  hands  suddenly  on 

*  Our  "  Form  of  Government  "  is  an  American  production.  The 
Westminster  "  Form  "  says  nothing  of  "  representatives  of  the  peo- 
ple." Why  was  it  discarded  ?  See  Assembly's  Digest  in  loco  for 
the  History  of  the  change,  but  the  reasons  are  not  given.  Why  did 
not  our  "  Form  of  Government,"  when  first  written  by  a  Synodical 
Committee  in  1787,  preserve  more  the  ancient  features.'* 


236  FeticJi  in   Order.  [Book  ^T!. 

no  man,"  it  gets  rid  of  that  risk  by  demissions  of  the 
work,  and  by  rotating  the  called  of  Christ  as  though 
they  were  the  mere  *'  representatives  of  the  people  " 
{see  Dr.  Hodge  s  Tract  on  Pres.'). 

This  is  the  tendency  of  modern  times.  But 
Dr.  Hodge,  as  standing  in  the  lead,  and  as  having 
brought  together  more  of  these  doctrinalistic  traits 
than  any  other  expounder  of  the  gospel,  shrivels 
the  Church,  too,  more  than  any  that  have  gone  be- 
fore him  ;  carries  his  conclusions  to  further  points  ; 
and  sells  his  own  authoritative  Presbyterianism  to 
all  those  busy  claimants  (who  are  glad  that  he  is 
lax)  of  a  more  positive  order,  and  a  more  downright 
institution  by  the  Redeemer. 

CHAPTER  ri. 

THE   TRUE    IDEA   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

Jesus  Christ  instituted  the  Lord's  Supper,  and 
said,  "This  do  in  remembrance  of  me"  (Luke 
xxii.  19).  The  word  had  hardly  gone  out  of  His 
mouth,  before  inspired  writers  began  to  emblema- 
tize the  sacrament  in  every  possible  way.  He  Him- 
self says,  ''  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
Man,  and  drink  His  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you" 
(John  vi.  53).  Ritualism  and  Doctrinalism  might 
come  in  here,  and  carry  the  ordinance  off  in  the 
same  opposite  directions.  Ritualists  might  say, 
The  ordinance  is  a  saving  feast ;  and  Doctrinalists 
might  say.  It  is  not  necessarily  a  feast  at  all. 

Now,  how  perfect  the  likeness  to  the  Church. 
Christ  prayed  all  night,  and  then  ordained  apostles 


CiiAr.  II.]        TJic  True  Idea  of  the  CJiurch.  237 

(Luke  vi.  12,  13).  He  gave  them  the  most  strin- 
gent powers  (Matt.  xvi.  18  ;  John  xx.  21,  23).  He 
settled  them  upon  the  most  permanent  and  far- 
reaching  work  (Luke  xvi.  15).  When  cloud 
clears,  we  find  them  with  a  Septuagint  name,'-''  and 
with  an  organization  plainly  resembling  the  Old 
Testament  type.  So  actual  is  this  Church,  that 
inspiration  gives  directions  for  handing  it  down  (2 
Tim.  ii.  2)  ;  and  so  authoritative  is  it,  that  it  girds 
itself  with  disciplinary  powers  (John  xx.  23)  ;  and 
so  practical  as  an  external  fact,  that  it  plunges  its 
life  into  the  very  midst  of  the  most  worldly  service 
(Acts  vi.  3). 

And  yet  our  Lord,  just  as  He  commands  bap- 
tism, and  then  employs  it  as  an  emblem  (Mark  x. 
39;  see  also  Matt.  iii.  11);  and  just  as  He  com- 
manded sacrifice,  and  then  speaks  of  it  as  saving 
(Lev.  X.  17;  Mai.  iii.  10)  ;  and  just  as  He  appoint- 
ed circumcision,  and  allowed  it  to  be  an  emblem 
in  the  Church  (Rom.  ii.  28,  29)  ;  nay,  just  as  He 
called  Abraham,  and  made  his  seed  typical  of  ac- 
tual salvation  (Gal.  iii.  29), — so  He  seizes  upon 
the  Church,  and  all  through  His  Word  makes  it  the 
symbol  of  ''the  body  of  believers."  Zion  (Is.  Iii.  i), 
and  Canaan  (Ps.  xcv.  11),  and  Egypt  (Rev.  xi.  8), 
and  the  cross  (Gal.  vi.  14),  and  His  blood  (i  John 
i.  17),  and  His  flesh  (John  vi.  51),  and  the  Temple 
(i  Cor.  iii.  16),  and  the  Altar  (Heb.  xiii.  10),  and  the 
Holiest  of  All  (Heb.  x.  19), — all  teach  in  the  manner 
of  the  East.     And  the  moment  a  sentence  fell  out 

*   'EKK/.rjOLa. 


238  Fetich  in   Order.  [Book  VI. 

that  used  them  figuratively,  Ritualists  gathered  it 
up.  The  very  congregation  of  God  grew  to  be  re- 
garded as  ''the  body  of  true  believers"  (John  viii. 
33) ;  and  though  ritualistically,  as  in  the  Papal 
Church,  yet  with  the  same  failure  to  consider  that 
the  w^ords  were  employed  as  emblems. 

Now  let  us  press  all  this  into  our  service  at  the 
present  day. 

The  word  chtirch''''  is  used  ninety-six  times  in 
the  New  Testament  for  an  external  organization.  It 
is  used  twelve  times,  and  hardly  that,  as  baptism  is 
when  it  is  applied  to  actual  salvation.  Who  would 
ever  dream  that  these  twelve  cases  would  define  the 
Church  ?  Burnt  sacrifices  were  actually  prescribed, 
and  men  continued  externally  to  heap  them  up. 
Abraham  was  actually  called,  and  Jews  continued 
outwardly  to  live  apart.  Baptism  was  ordered,  and 
men  offered  it ;  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  it  is 
externally  continued  in  the  world.  All  these  were 
used  as  emblems  ;  but  sober  sense  kept-on  the  exter- 
nal rite.  But  the  Church  is  instituted,  and  here 
comes  up  a  man  who  says  that  it  is  ''  the  body  of 
true  believers  ; "  that  it  is  not  essentially  external ; 
that  it  is  visible  primarily  because  saints  are  visible ; 
that  it  is  not  therefore  obligatory  in  any  decyphera- 
ble  form  ;  and  when  asked  for  his  proof,  points  to 
the  very  expression,  the  Church  the  body  of  Christ 
(Col.  i.  18),  just  as  a  man  could  deny  that  baptism 
is  external  because  it  says,  "■  baptism  doth  now  save 
us"  (i   Pet.  iii.  21). 


CiiAr.  II.]         The  True  Idea  of  the  ChnrcJL.  239 

The  doctrine  of  the  Church  is  exactly  what  good 
men  would'  read  if  it  had  never  been  employed  in 
emblems  ;  external,  like  the  Septuagint  norm ; 
actually  framed  by  Christ ;  actually  formed  with 
powers  ;  actually  braced  with  office  ;  intended  to  be 
continued  by  descent ;  and  armed  with  salutary 
rules,  and  with  becoming  authority,  under  the  will 
of  the  Redeemer.  If  any  one  says,  Is  there  but  one 
pattern  therefore  ?  We  say,  Unquestionably  but 
one.  If  he  asks.  What,  therefore,  that  pattern  is, 
We  ask  liim.  What  is  the  pattern  for  baptism  .'* 
Most  men  thus  far  believe  that  that  is  an  external 
rite,  and  that  it  is  to  be  administered  in  a  certain 
way.  Neither  baptism  nor  the  Lord's  Supper  have 
come  to  be  doctrinally  impugned.  But  yet  as  to 
their  specific  forms  there  is  some  obscurity.  Who 
doubts  that  we  should  examine  our  very  best  .'*  and 
who  hesitates  that  out  of  our  most  carefiil  search  there 
should  emersre  that  rule  for  the  two  that  shall  show 
our  most  docile  purpose  to  follow  our  Deliverer } 
Presbytery  is  better  than  Prelacy.  So  think  certain 
Christians.  Prelacy  is  better  than  Presbytery.  So 
think  certain  others.  One  is  undoubtedly  wrong. 
But  how  much  more  wrong  the  man  that  says  that' 
the  Church  is  not  in  its  own  essence  external ;  and 
how  thoroughly  would  Baptism  be  destroyed  if  it 
were  treated  with  the  same  use  of  the  figures  of  the 
East. 


240  Fetich  ill   Order.  [Book  VI. 


CHAPTER   III. 

DR.    HODGE's    idea   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

Dr.  Hodge's  idea  is  that  the  Church  is  "  the 
body  of  true  believers"  {Idea  of  tJie  C/mrch,  Prince- 
ton Rev.,  vol.  XXV.  p.  251). 

His  reasoning  is  very  peculiar.  He  calls  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  of  the  acceptance  of  the  Apostles' 
Creed  (ibid.  p.  249).  He  then  quotes  from  the 
Creed: — *'The  Holy  Catholic  Church;  the  com- 
munion of  saints,"  and  inaugurates  his  plan  at  once 
on  the  basis  of  this  grandest  Symbol.  But  let  us 
attempt  a  similar.  The  Church  is  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
for  listen  again  (out  of  the  Creed), — "  The  Holy 
Ghost ;  the  holy  catholic  church."  Or  once 
more, — The  communion  of  saints  is  the  forgiveness 
of  sins ;  for  listen  again, — ''I  believe  in  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  the  holy  catholic  church ;  the  communion  of 
saints ;  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  the  resurrection 
of  the  body ;  and  the  life  everlasting."  Ought  we 
not  to  be  exempted  from  such  arguments  }  Or, 
turning  the  proof  into  just  the  opposite,  does  this 
Creed  ever  repeat  ?  Is  not  '*  the  communion  of 
saints "  ex  inteiitit  a  separate  count }  And  is  not 
our  ''  Confession  "  right  when  it  makes  a  chapter  on 
the  ''  Holy  Catholic  Church,"  and  follows  it  immedi- 
ately after  with  one  on  the  communion  of  be- 
lievers } 

Dr.  Hodge,  however,  with  this  impulse  from  the 


CiiAp  in.]       Dr.  Hodge's  Idea  of  the  Church.         241 

*'  Creed,"  goes  on  to  expound  his  system.  Our 
Confession,  with  one  sentence  at  the  first  to  guard 
us  against  the  emblematic  sense,  gives  five  sentences 
out  of  six  to  its  working  term,  viz.,  ''the  visible 
church,  which  is  also  catholic  or  universal."  Dr. 
Hodge  never  quotes  from  it.  He  quotes  other  Con- 
fessions ;  from  the  Helvetic;  from  the  Augsburg; 
from  the  Nicene  ;  from  the  Belgic  ;  and  from  the 
Lutheran  more  than  once  ;  but  he  never  notices  his 
own  Westminster  symbol.  Indeed  he  differs  from 
it ;  not  simply  in  the  major  case,  but  in  another  dis- 
tinct averment.  The  visible  church  he  ars-ues 
cannot  be  catholic;  and  yet  here  we  have  the 
distinct  language  of  the  Divines,  "  the  visible  church 
which  is  also  catholic  "  (Conf.  chap.  xxv.  2). 

But  as  more  fair  let  us  give  the  whole  chapter 
which  stands  as  our  Confession  : — 

Chap.  xxv.  ''  Of  the  Church.  I.  The  catholic  or 
universal  church,  which  is  invisible,  consists  of  the 
whole  number  of  the  elect  that  have  been,  are,  or 
shall  be,  gathered  into  one  under  Christ  the  head 
thereof ;  and  is  the  spouse,  the  body,  the  fulness  of 
Him  that  filleth  all  in  all. 

II.  ''  The  visible  church,  which  is  also  catholic 
or  universal  under  the  gospel  (not  confined  to  one 
nation,  as  before  under  the  law),  consists  of  all 
those  throughout  the  world  that  profess  the  true 
religion,  together  with  their  children;  and  is  the 
kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  house  and 
family  of  God  ;  out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary 
possibility  of  salvation. 


242  Fetich  in  Order.  [Book  YI. 

III.  "  Unto  this  catholic  visible  church  Christ 
hath  given  the  ministry,  oracles  and  ordinances  of 
God,  for  the  gathering  and  perfecting  of  the  saints 
in  this  life  to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  and  doth  by  His 
own  presence  and  Spirit,  according  to  His  promise, 
make  them  effectual  thereunto. 

IV.  ''  This  catholic  church  hath  been  sometimes 
more,  sometimes  less,  visible.  And  particular 
churches,  which  are  members  thereof,  are  more  or 
less  pure,  according  as  the  gospel  is  taught  and 
embraced,  ordinances  administered,  and  public  wor- 
ship performed,  more  or  less  purely  in  them. 

V.  *'  The  purest  churches  under  heaven  are  sub- 
ject both  to  mixture  and  error ;  and  some  have  so 
degenerated  as  to  become  no  churches  of  Christ, 
but  synagogues  of  Satan.  Nevertheless  there  shall 
be  always  a  church  on  earth  to  worship  God  accord- 
ing to  His  will. 

VI.  ''  There  is  no  other  head  of  the  church  but 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  nor  can  the  Pope  of  Rome 
in  any  sense  be  head  thereof;  but  is  that  antichrist, 
that  man  of  sin,  and  son  of  perdition,  that  exalteth 
himself  in  the  church  against  Christ  and  all  that  is 
called  God." 

On  the  contrary.  Dr.  Hodge  says,  ''  In  that  sym- 
bol of  faith  adopted  by  the  whole  Christian  world, 
commonly  called  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Church 
is  declared  to  be  '  the  Communion  of  Saints '  .  .  . 
It  is  obvious  that  the  Church,  considered  as  the 
communion  of  saints,  does  not  necessarily  include 
the  idea  of  a  visible  society  organized  under  one 


Chap,  m.]      Dr.  Hodges  Idea  of  the  CJmrch.        243 

definite  form.  ...  It  is  not  presented  as  a  visible 
organization  to  which  the  form  is  essential "  (Prince- 
ton Rev.,  vol.  XXV.  p.  249).     Again,  "  It  does  not 

include  the  idea  of  any  external  organization 

The  Church,  therefore,  ....  is  not  necessarily  a 

visible  society It  may  be  proper  that  such 

union  should  exist :  it  may  be  true  that  it  has  always 
existed ;  but  it  is  not  necessary.  The  Church,  as 
such,  is  not  a  visible  society.  All  visible  union, 
all  external  organization,  may  cease  ;  and  yet,  so 
long  as  there  are  saints  who  have  communion,  the 
Church  exists,  if  the  church  is  the  communion  of 
saints"  {ibid.  p.  250). 

Let  us  paraphrase  this.  'The  A.  B.  creed  says, 
''  Baptism  is  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire." 
Baptism,  therefore,  is  not  essentially  external.  It  is 
not  necessarily  a  visible  rite.  It  may  be  proper 
that  such  rite  be  shown  forth,  but  it  is  not  neces- 
sary. Baptism,  as  such,  is  not  a  visible  administra- 
tion. Such  usage  may  cease  ;  but,  if  the  Holy  Ghost 
continues  to  be  administered,  the  man  is  baptized — 
if  baptism  is  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  by  fire.' 

Or,  take  another  case.  '  It  was  promised  to  the 
seed  of  Abraham  that  they  should  inherit  the  earth. 
The  Jews  took  a  carnal  view  of  this  ;  and  supposed 
that  external  relationship  would  secure  salvation. 
Therefore,  the  ecclesia  of  the  ancient  seed  was  not 
in  its  essence  external ;  and  the  gathering  of  the 
sons  was  not  an  essential  fact  in  the  congregation 
of  the  Lord.' 

"So  far,  therefore,  is  the  Apostles'  Creed  from 


244  Fetich  m  Order.  [Book  VI. 

representing  the  Church  as  a  monarchy,  an  aristoc- 
racy, or  a  democracy ;  so  far  is  it  from  setting  forth 
the  Church  as  a  visible  society  of  one  specific  form, 
that  it  does  not  present  it  under  the  idea  of  an  ex- 
ternal society  at  all.  The  saints  may  exist ;  they 
may  have  communion;  the  Church  may  continue 
under  any  external  organization,'-'  or  without  any 
visible  organization  whatever"  (Princeton  Rev.,  vol. 
xxv.  p.  250). 

**By  this  statement  it  is  not  meant  that  the 
word  cJmrcJi  is  not  properly  used  in  various  senses. 
The  object  of  inquiry  is  not  the  usage  of  the  word, 
but  the  true  idea  of  a  thing;  not  how  the  word 
church  is  employed,  but  what  the  Church  itself  is  ; 
who  compose  the  Church  1 "  This  is  very  import- 
ant ;  otherwise,  we  might  be  confused  by  the  fact 
that  an  invisible  church  is  spoken  of  under  a  meta- 
phoric  head.  Dr.  Hodge  properly  expounds,  that 
we  are  speaking  of  the  working  title,  that  unmeta- 
phoric  sense  that  we  drop-to  when  we  treat  of  bap- 
tism or  the  Lord's  Supper.  ''  What  is  essential  to 
the  existence  of  that  body  to  which  the  attributes, 
the  promises,  the  prerogatives,  of  the  Church  be- 
long.?" (ibid.  p.  252.) 

"The  Church  of  God,"  Dr.  Hodge  replies,  "is 
the  whole  number  of  the  elect ;  the  Church  of  Cor- 
inth is  the  whole  number  of  the  called  in  that  city  " 
{ibid.  p.  255).  The  Church  of  Princeton,  there- 
fore, is  the  pious  people  there,  even  though  they 
contumaciously  refuse  to  unite  in  any  communion. 

*  The  Young  Men's  Christian  Association,  for  example. 


CiiAP.  III.]     Dr.  Hodge  s  Idea  of  the  Church.          245 

"The  descriptions  of  the  Church  given  in  the 
Word  of  God  apply  to  none  but  true  believers" 
{ibid.  p.  261) ;  as,  for  example,  the  Church  in  Lao- 
dicea,  to  whom  Christ  says,  ''  I  will  spue  thee  out 
of  my  mouth"  (Rev.  iii.  16). 

And  in  the  late  speech  before  the  ''  Alliance," 
Dr.  Hodge  thus  stands  as  the  representative  of  the 
Presbyterian  body  : — "  Nothing  external  is  essential 
to  the  being  of  the  Church"  (Tribune  Report). 

And  then,  lastly: — ''If  ordination  be  analogous 
to  an  appointment  to  office,  as  a  king  or  president 
appoints  a  man,  then  no  man  is  a  minister  who  has 
not  been  commissioned  by  due  authority.  But  if, 
as  we  Protestants  believe,  no  Church  can  make  a 
minister  any  more  than  it  can  make  a  Christian 
[prolonged  applause],  then,"  etc.  That  is, — Under 
the  same  shrouding  of  externality  and  external  or- 
der in  the  Church,  not  only  can  a  ''man  [be]  a 
minister  who  has  not  been  commissioned  by  due 
authority,"  but  "no  Church  can  make  a  minister 
any  more  than  it  can  make  a  Christian "  (Tribune 
Report). 

These  views,  and  others  of  which  we  are  yet  to 
speak,  were  in  the  very  eye  of  the  world,  and  with 
every  motive  from  the  presence  of  a  different  belief 
to  represent  with  care  his  own  system. 


246  Fetich  in  Order.  [BookVL 


CHAPTER   IV. 

DR.    HODGE'S   argument   FOR   HIS    IDEA   OF   THE    CHURCH. — ITS 
FALSENESS. 

When  men  are  advancing  truth  almost  univer- 
sally believed,  they  may  be  sometimes  negligent  in 
their  reasoning,  and  may  offer  proofs  either  from 
reason  or  the  word  of  God,  suggestive  rather  than 
demonstrative  in  their  real  nature.  The  ship  may 
sit  loosely  in  her  rigging  if  there  be  days  of  calm. 
But  Dr.  Hodge,  in  extemporizing  a  course  on  the 
*'  Government  of  the  Church  "  in  the  Seminary  at 
Princeton,  followed  a  Professor  who  taught  just  the 
opposite  system ;  was  followed  by  a  Professor  who 
restored  that  system's  books,  and  taught  it  over 
again  ;  was  exhorted  by  "  Directors  "  to  desist,  writ- 
ten to  and  written  of  in  respect  to  the  peculiarities 
of  his  faith,  and,  therefore,  had  every  reason  to  as- 
certain its  imagined  evidences. 

Near  a  quarter  of  a  century  has  not  made  that 
reason  less  ;  yet  when  that  Church,  through  many 
parts  of  her,  has  quieted  her  fears  under  the  suppo- 
sition that  that  subject  had  gone  into  other  hands, 
Dr.  Hodge  has  not  surrendered  it ;  he  has  been 
busy  multiplying  his  proofs  ;  he  has  influenced  for 
a  score  of  years  the  ministry  of  the  Church  ;  he  has 
founded  a  school  that  it  may  be  difficult  to  overset ; 
and  therefore,  beyond  all  form  of  doubt,  he  is  re- 
sponsible for  the  most  solid  proofs,  and  for  the 
most  unchallengeable  scheme  of  arguing,  if  he  is 
to  uphold  his  system. 


Chap.  IV.]  D}\  Hodges  Argument.  247 

What  is  that  scheme  ? 

We  can  present  it  fairly  to  be  tried  if  we  dis- 
cuss it  under  the  seven  heads  under  which  he  offers 
it  to  our  consideration. 

Dr.  Hodge's  Church,  therefore,  is  ''  the  body  of 
true  believers,"  and  his  proofs  are :  First,  *'  the 
word  cJinrcJi  ;  "  second,  the  equivalent  expressions  ; 
third,  the  descriptive  terms;  fourth,  the  ** attributes 
ascribed"  to  it;  fifth,  *' the  promises  "  made  to  it; 
sixth,  the  doctrine  that  belongs  to  it ;  and  seventh, 
''the  theory"  that  has  been  held  by  it,  or,  as  Dr. 
Hodge  expresses  it,  **  the  testimony  of  the  Church," 
that  it  has  given  in  respect  to  its  own  nature. 

I.  Now  in  regard  to  the  name,  that  name  is  de- 
rived from  two  Greek  words  that  mean  to  call  out 
QKKlrjaLo).  Dr.  Hodge  says,  "  Every  eKK?/i(jia  is  com- 
posed of  the  Kl7]Toi  of  those  called  out  and  assembled  " 
(Princeton  Rev.,  vol.  xxv.  p.  256).  And  here  at  the 
outset  let  us  remember  that  the  word  sKKhiGia  came 
down  to  Paul  from  the  Old  Testament  worship.  It 
is  a  bad  argument  that  will  not  apply  where  the 
word  was  first  put  in  use.  In  the  Septuagint  we 
read,  "  In  the  midst  of  the  congregation  (^eKiayaiac) 
will  I  praise  thee"  (Ps.  xxii.  22,  qtioted  Heb.  ii.  12  ; 
see  also  i  Kings  viii.  14 ;  Deut.  xviii.  16).  Now,  unless 
the  '*  congregation  "  to  which  this  name  was  given 
was  not  in  any  essential  way  external ;  nay,  more 
flatly,  unless  the  town-meeting  (eK/c?.??(7m,  Acts  xix.  32, 
39,  41)  that  wanted  to  stone  Paul  were  the  e/cZ^/cro^, 
(for  it  is  on  the  term  itself  that  Dr.  Hodge  builds 
the  argument),  then  we  can  dismiss  this  proof  at 


248  Fetich  hi   Order.  [Book  VI. 

once.  The  term  became  Scriptural  at  Alexandria 
among  Ptolemy's  Seventy.  Why  they  used  it,  and 
where  they  got  it,  we  might  most  easily  tell.  It 
derived  itself  in  a  way  extra-religious.  It  can  be 
found  in  Donnegan  like  any  other  Greek.  And  to_ 
build  a  tenet  upon  it,  and  that  tenet  painful  to  the 
Church,  is  an  act  which  the  very  coolest  men,  when 
they  begin  to  challenge  it,  must  feel  the  impulse  to 
press  to  the  actual  point  either  of  explanation  or 
surrender. 

But  suppose  we  pass  it.  Suppose  the  word  had 
been  invented  by  Christ.  Suppose  it  had  been  ap- 
plied to  nothing  but  the  New  Testament  church. 
Suppose  it  were  linked  with  Klnrot,  and  to  be  ex- 
pounded by  a?/(7i{-  and  every  linguistic  mate.  What 
would  that  prove.?  Dr.  Hodge  says,  ''None  but 
those  who  truly  repent  and  believe  are  ever  called 
kJjjtol''  (Princeton  Rev.,  vol.  xxv.  p.  256).  Now  how 
unfortunate  this  is !  How  unfortunate  all  such  uni- 
versals  are  unless  most  carefully  framed.  The 
word  Kcilzto  is  used  with  wonderful  vagrancy.  It  has 
no  set  fitting  whatever  (Is.  xlv.  4 ;  Heb.  v.  4),  and 
this  very  articulate  part  of  it  is  used  for  those  not 
tiiktii-oLy  and  this  by  the  way  of  a  most  distinctive 
caution  ;  for  we  are  told, — "  Many  be  called  {KAi]-oi), 
but  few  chosen  "  (Matt.  xx.  16). 

Passing  by  the  fact,  therefore,  that  it  is  an  Athe- 
nian term  (e/c/cZ^^^m),  and  passing  by  what  follows,  viz., 
that  it  cannot  found  an  argument,  and  omitting  all 
complaint  that  this  surd  evidence  succeeds  that  like 
one  from  the  Creed,  (''  The  Holy  Catholic  Church  ; 


Chap.  IV.]  Dr.   Hodge  s  Arginncnt.  249 

the  Communion  of  Saints,")  we  might  admit  that 
Christ  framed  the  word,  and  yet  hold  that  it  is  the 
best  chosen  Greek  exactly  to  express  the  relation 
of  an  external  church  as  called  out  of  an  ungodly 

nation   (see  Jud.  XX.    I,  efe/c/cA;ycrmc7i?7/). 

II.   But  let  us  go  on  to  the  next  argument. 

He  says,  '*  Those  epistles  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  are  addressed  to  churches,  are  addressed 
to  believers,  saints,  the  children  of  God.  These 
latter  terms,  therefore,  are  equivalent  to  the  former. 
The  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  this  fact  is,  that 
the  Church  consists  of  believers "  (ibid.  p.  258). 
Now  let  the  reader  hunt  this  up  in  the  pages  of  the 
Princeton  Review,  and  cast  his  eye  one  paragraph 
before,  and  read, — *'  All  the  professors  in  Corinth 
are  called  saints,  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  the 
saved,  the  children  of  God,  the  faithful,  believers, 
etc.,  etc.  .  .  .  Their  being  called  believers  does  not 
prove  that  they  were  all  believers  "  (ibid.).  And 
yet  the  very  argument  now  is,  that  the  churches 
being  addressed  as  believers,  proves  this  very  thing, 
viz.,  that  they  are  the  body  of  Christ ;  so  punctual 
is  Dr.  Hodge  in  dropping  something  that  shall  con- 
tradict him  in  the  close  neighborhood  of  his  extremer 
teachings. 

His  is  our  very  most  lucid  answer. 

**  The  Church  is  the  body  of  professed  believers 
with  their  children"  (Conf.  of  Faith,  chap.  xxv.  2). 
Our  confession  gives  us  our  working  sense.  But 
the  body  of  professed  believers  are  to  be  treated 
hopefully.      So    must   always    be    the  case.      Paul 


250  Fetich  ill   Order.  [Book  VI. 

cries, — "  We  accept  it  always,  most  noble  Festus." 
He  treats  him  hopefully.  We  cry, — "  We  humble 
ourselves  before  thee,  O  God ;  we  love  thee  and 
express  our  gratitude."  We  treat  ourselves  hope- 
fully. It  is  the  style,  beyond  a  doubt.  We  call  all 
people  saints  who  are  at  the  communion  table. 
Moreover,  holiness  is  one  mark  of  the  Church.  It 
belongs  to  its  externality.  If  a  church  ceased  to  be 
holy,  it  would  cease  to  be  one.  That  is,  if  exter- 
nality is  essential  to  the  church,  so  is  it  that  it  should 
be  holy.  An  attempt  at  the  New  Testament  frame 
is  not  so  vital  to  the  body  as  that  it  should  have 
some  members,  at  least,  who  actually  have  turned 
from  their  wickedness. 

But  how  precisely  can  Dr.  Hodge  make  his 
point  .'*  He  says  (Princeton  Rev.,  vol.  xxv.  p.  258), 
— ''  All  the  professors  in  Corinth  are  called  saints." 
Then,  of  course,  if  the  Church  is  called  the  saints, 
he  has  shattered  his  own  argument.  The  beloved 
of  God,  the  called  of  Jesus,  the  sanctified  of  Christ, 
the  "  elect  unto  obedience,"  or  any  other  excellent 
people,  may  be  all  addressed  under  the  title  of  the 
Church,  and  Dr.  Hodge  has  himself  destroyed  the 
possibilities  of  the  needful  demonstration. 

HI.   So  now  the  third  argument. 

(i)  ''The  church  is  .  .  .  the  body  of  Christ," 
Eph.  i.  22  (p.  262). 

Dr.  Hodge  may  make  his  election,  either  to 
count  this  one  of  those  strong  cases  where  profes- 
sors of  religion  were  talked  to  as  though  they  were 
real  Christians,  or  do  what  we  prefer,  couple  it  with 


CHAr.  IV.]  Dr.  Hodges  Argjimoit.  251 

Old  Testament  emblems.  Zion  is  spoken  of  as  a 
bride  (Is.  lii.  i)  ;  Moriah  as  God's  holy  hill  (Ps. 
xliii.  3)  ;  David  as  the  King  of  Saints  (Ps.  cxxxii. 
17);  and  Joshua  as  Jesus  Christ  (Zach.  iii.  i) ; 
and  yet,  who  doubts  that  there  were  such  external 
facts  t  and  who,  on  the  ground  of  the  like,  ought  to 
deny  the  reality  of  Christ's  organized  kingdom  t 

The  arguments,  therefore,  are  like  P'airbank's 
scale.  They  have  but  a  single  tread.  Once  know 
that  the  church  has  an  emblematic  sense,  and  why 
multiply  the  refutation  .?  (2)  ''  The  church  is  the 
temple  of  God  "  (p.  263)  ;  (3)  the  church  is  the 
family  of  God  (ibid.)  ;  (4)  ''  the  church  is  the  flock 
of  Christ"  {ibid.)]  (5)  ''the  church  is  the  bride 
of  Christ"  (ibid.~)  ;  ''  living  stones"  (p.  264)  ;  "  elect, 
precious  "  (ibid.') ;  "  purchased  by  His  blood "  (ibid.); 
pages  of  this  Review  all  hang  upon  a  single  fact 
which  our  Confession  articulately  expounds.  There 
is  an  emblematic  ''Bride,"  bearing  the  same  relation 
to  the  working  Church  that  the  Spouse  did  to  the 
external  Zion.  The  thought  of  her  debauched  the 
Jews,  just  as  the  same  fancy  misled  the  Papists  ;  and 
in  setting  that  right,  viz.,  what  Israel  trusted  to  the 
blood  of  Abraham,  and  what  the  Papists  trust  to 
the  external  church,  we  would  destroy  her  extern- 
ality altogether,  that  is  dethrone  the  fact  because 
Idolatry  has  abused  the  emblem. 

IV.  We  advance  to  the  weaker  arguments  of 
Dr.  Hodge  when  we  strike  his  fourth  point,  viz.,  the 
three  marks  of  a  church, — holiness,  unity  and  catho- 
licity.    Who  framed  those  tests  .^     If  the  Papists,  of 


252  Fetich  ill  Order.  [Book  VI. 

course  they  suit  their  hierarchy ;  and  if  Dr.  Hodge, 
of  course  they  apply  to  the  ''body  of  true  behevers." 
Where  is  the  bearing  of  such  a  proof?  Dr.  Hodge 
says,  a  visible  church  cannot  be  catholic  (ibid.  pp. 
276,  278).  His  own  ''  Confession"  says  that  it  can 
and  is  (Conf.  xxv.  2).  Who  shall  decide  .^  And 
furthermore,  what  if  it  is  not  .'*  who  shall  condemn  "^ 
We  believe  that  the  visible  church  is  one  and  cath- 
olic and  holy,  but  if  it  is  less  perfectly  so  than  the 
body  of  Christ,  and  if  they  do  not  usefully  apply, 
there  is  not  the  slenderest  harm  had  we  to  dismiss 
the  three  marks  as  all  impertinencies. 

V.  And  so  of  the  next  argument : — The  church 
has  promises  (p.  279);  first,  of  the  Divine  Spirit; 
second,  of  divine  teaching  (p.  280)  ;  third,  of  divine 
protection  (p.  281)  ;  fourth,  of  divine  success  (ibid.')  ; 
fifth,  of  holiness  and  salvation  (p.  282.)  The  visible 
church  is  promised  these  things  as  her  general  gift. 
She  is  to  extend  from  sea  to  sea ;  she  is  never 
finally  to  cease  ;  the  gates  of  hell  are  never  to  pre- 
vail against  her  (Matt.  xvi.  18).  And  if  Dr.  Hodge 
means  anything  more  specific  than  this,  he  is  mix- 
ins:  the  accounts  of  what  is  visible  and  the  Bride  of 
the  Redeemer. 

VI.  The  sixth  argument  is  what  Dr.  Hodge 
styles  "doctrinal."  We  have  treated  it  virtually 
under  the  second  chapter.  ••""  It  is  not  necessary  to 
choose  between  Ritualism  and  Nothingarianism. 
There  may  be  a  valid  Ecclesia  inside  of  the  Pope 
and  outside  of  a  mere  mystic  spiritism. 

*  On  "  the  Tnie  Idea  of  the  Church:' 


Chap.  IV.]  Dr.  Hodges  Argument.  253 

VII.  We  hurry  on  to  the  last  point, — Dr.  Hodge's 
testimony  of  creeds. 

We  have  seen  how  he  omits  his  own  creed,  and 
what  happy  testimony  that  creed  bears  to  the  ex- 
ternaUty  of  the  Church. 

We  admit  that  those  he  quotes  inchne  too  much 
to  the  invisible.  And  why  .?  They  were  wrestling 
with  the  idolatries  of  Rome.  They  were  forms 
starting  back  from  the  loathsome  embraces  of  the 
sorceress.  The  Second  Helvetic  seizes  upon  the 
Creed,  and  uses  it  as  Dr.  Hodge  does: — ''The 
Holy  Catholic  Church,  the  Communion  of  Saints." 
(chap.  xvii.).  But  still  they  are  behind  Dr.  Hodge. 
The  Augsburg  says,  ''  The  church  is  a  congrega- 
tion of  saints"  (§  vii.).  So  say  we.  A  Free  Ma- 
son Lodge  is  a  congregation  of  philanthropists.  So 
they  professedly  are.  And  yet  they  may  not  be  phi- 
lanthropists, and  it  still  be  a  Lodge  ;  and  so  the  Con- 
fession goes  on  to  say,  "hypocrites  and  wicked  per- 
sons are  included,  .  .  .  although  the  church  is  prop- 
erly a  congregation  of  saints  and  true  believers  "  (§ 
viii.).  ''  In  which  the  gospel  is  taught," — that  is  the 
next  expression, — "■  and  the  sacraments  rightly  ad- 
ministered ; "  that  looks  much  like  externality.  And 
in  searching  through  all  the  Creeds,  not  simply  as 
quoted  by  Dr.  Hodge  himself,  but  in  any  part  of 
their  Confessions,  we  find  not  a  single  word  like 
this, — an  avowal  that  nothing  visible  is  essential 
to  the  church  (Princeton  Rev.,  vol.  xxv.  p.  249), 
and  no  specific  form  intended  for  her  order  (ibid  p. 
250). 


254  Fetich  in  Order.  PBookVI. 


CHAPTER   V. 

PEACTICAL   MISCHIEFS    OF   DR.    HODGE'S    IDEA   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

No  one  who  owns  an  estate,  or  who  has  a  note 
to  collect,  or  an  account  that  he  wishes  to  turn  into 
money,  but  must  value  to  the  last  degree  the  au- 
thority of  an  outward  government.  No  one  who 
has  a  soul  to  save,  but  must  value  for  himself  and 
his  children  the  authority  of  Christ.  I  need  not  un- 
fold the  reasons.  That  there  be  discipline,  and  that 
there  be  power  to  enforce  it  somewhere,  Presbyte- 
rians will  see  at  a  glance,  and  accept  without  the 
necessity  of  argument. 

Christ's  authority  is  of  two  sorts,  direct  and  in- 
direct ;  as  it  is  direct,  He  is  the  Lord  of  the  con- 
science ;  as  it  is  indirect,  He  has  committed  it  to  the 
Church  ;  Christ's  direct  authority  Dr.  Hodge  does 
not  meddle  with ;  that  which  is  indirect  he  practi- 
cally overturns ;  for  it  is  amazing  how  vast  the  dif- 
ference between  Dr.  Hodge's  account  and  the  ac- 
count of  Christ,  for  example,  to  his  servant  Peter 
(Matt.  xvi.  1 8). 

Now,  forbearing  all  dispute  ;  taking  with  us  the 
judgment  of  the  mass  on  ecclesiastical  control ; 
knowing  the  value  of  it ;  believing  where  we  would 
be,  without  it ;  and  not  staying  to  decide  whether 
the  gift  of  the  keys  (Matt.  xvi.  19),  and  the  bind- 
ing on  earth  (Matt,  xviii.  18),  and  the  remitting  of 
sin  (John  xx.  23),  imply,  whether  specifically  or  not, 
an  administered  outward  government ;  allowing  all 
these  discussions  to  take  care  of  themselves ;  there 


Chap,  v.]  Practical  Mischiefs.  255 

is  enough  of  formed  belief  established  in  the  edu- 
cation of  our  people  to  reveal  to  them  that  the  in- 
direct authority  of  Christ  is  of  the  last  importance 
to  the  welfare  of  believers. 

But  now  how  would  this  authority  be  the  best } 
— if  Christ  formed  a  government  and  gave  it  actual 
rights  1  or,  if  He  let  things  swing  in  the  loose  way 
in  which  Dr.  Hodge  has  depicted.?  He  called 
Abram,  and  made  him  an  actual  State.  He  called 
Moses,  and  made  his  an  actual  decree.  He  called 
Levi,  and  made  him  an  actual  hierarchy  in  the 
Church.  And  so,  if  He  called  the  Twelve,  and 
built  upon  them  an  actual  commonwealth  and  court, 
whether  would  that  be  better,  or  a  church  not  neces- 
sarily external,  if  He  desired  practical  authority  and 
wholesome  government  in  His  kingdom  in  the  world } 

Now,  so  easy  is  a  true  reply,  that  the  plan  that 
Dr.  Hodge  takes  sells  us  to  all  manner  of  error. 
If  the  Church  has  no  definite  form  I  can  indulge 
my  tastes  about  it.  Dr.  Hodge  half  admits  this. 
Again,  if  the  church  is  not  essentially  external 
(Princeton  Rev.,  vol.  xxv.  p.  249),  I  can  do  as  I 
please  about  it.  Men  will  often  not  join  the  church. 
Among  vulgar  saints  I  will  flee  to  one  that  is  re- 
fined. I  will  indulge  my  intellect.  If  I  can  get 
business-propping,  I  will  be  moved  by  that.  Who 
among  the  sons  of  clay  will  stay  lower  in  society,  or 
do  worse  as  to  estate,  if  they  dare  do  as  they  desire  .-* 
Because,  mark  it : — The  Church  is  the  body  of 
Christ,  and  no  outward  form  is  essential  to  the  house 
of  the  Redeemer  (ibid?). 


256  Fetich  in  Order.  [Book  VI. 

Nay,  suppose  I  have  scruples  just  there.  Sup- 
pose I  have  begun  to  doubt.  Suppose  I  have  be- 
come disgusted  with  this  unpositive  idea.  Suppose 
I  am  moved  against  it  by  a  church  that  holds  the  very 
reverse.  What  will  be  the  result }  In  the  vast  ma- 
jority of  cases,  a  desertion  to  the  side  that  is  more 
Scriptural.  It  may  be  half  Papal  in  all  other  re- 
spects, but  its  show  of  insistence  here  will  absorb 
many  a  saint  who  has  been  trifled  with  with  this 
theory  of  the  kingdom. 

And  how  sad  it  all  seems  !  For  now  is  a  time 
for  a  more  than  usual  reach  of  Presbyterian  au- 
thority. 

Give  Dr.  Hodge  his  way,  and  we  bind  it  hand 
and  foot  just  at  the  time  when  it  ought  to  be  more 
gravely  positive.  The  Pontificate  failing  in  the 
East;  the  influence  of  the  Latin  Church  failing  con- 
spicuously on  the  part  of  the  Latin  peoples  ;  the 
power  of  the  Romish  creed  seating  itself  in  a  higher 
race,  and  in  England,  even  in  the  most  intellectual 
seats,  nursing  itself  among  the  very  highest  of  the 
people ;  when  it  is  alarming  us  by  its  accumulation 
of  estate,  and  taking  us  by  surprise  by  the  advance 
towards  it  of  the  chief  church  in  all  English-speak- 
ing Christendom,  it  is  a  bold  feat  of  Satan  just  at 
that  hour  to  tie  the  arm  and  emasculate  the  strength 
of  just  that  body  that  should  be  most  on  the  alert, 
and  is  certainly  best  able  to  resist  the  evil. 

A  Romanist  knows  Dr.  Hodge's  theory  to  be 
false.  He  can  easily  show  it  to  the  very  feeblest  of 
our  people.     Let  it  become  the  plan  that  is  seated 


Chap.  VI.]  Doctrinal  Mischiefs.  257 

in  the  doctrine  of  our  Seminaries,  and  the  fight  is 
over.  So  far  as  divine  poHty  determines  the  polemic 
of  his  faith,  the  game  is  on  his  side.  Dr.  Hodge  has 
rested  our  case  upon  a  hold  that  can  be  never 
tenable. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

DOCTRINAL    MISCHIEF   OF   DR.    HODGE's    IDEA   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

True  to  a  working  at  which  we  have  already 
hinted  (p.  255)  a  sacrifice  of  order  to  doctrine  reacts 
into  a  sacrifice  of  the  doctrine  itself.  It  is  well 
enough  to  say  that  the  water  floats  the  ship ;  we 
must  not  forget  that  the  canal  holds  the  water.  The 
apostle  explains  it  ; — ''  The  church  which  is  the 
pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth"  (i  Tim.  iii.  15). 
Touch  authority,  therefore,  and  what  is  the  result  t 
First,  error  in  the  church  itself  She  is  not  able  to 
expel  it.  Give  Dr.  Hodge  his  wish,  and  the  very 
faith  of  which  he  v/ould  make  so  much,  is  unguard- 
ed in  its  adoption  among  its  ministers. 

Again,  it  is  unguarded  in  the  world.  The 
Church,  which  is  its  natural  defence,  cannot  enforce 
it.  If  it  do,  the  man  flies.  If  the  church  has  no 
external  essence,  the  man  leaves  it  at  the  breath  of 
his  lightest  desires.  We,  therefore,  build  up  other 
churches.  And  as  those  churches  have  not  our 
faith,  we  build  up  other  faiths.  The  no-fence  hus- 
bandry loses  its  flock  to  where  the  fences  are  kept 
up.  And  so  in  two  ways,  first  by  indulgence  among 
ourselves,  and  second  by  losses  into  the  fields  be- 
yond, we  build  up  error.     We  make  everything   of 


258  Fetich  in  Order,  [Book VI. 

doctrine  at  the  first,  and  nothing  of  doctrine  as  the 
final  consequence. 

CHAPTER   VII. 

ON   THE    QUESTION,    WHAT   IS   A   TRUE    CHURCH   OF    GOD  ? 

To  the  argument  that  all  Protestant  churches 
which  are  characterized  by  piety,  are  true  churches 
of  Christ,  and,  as  they  differ  in  external  form,  that 
therefore  no  specific  form,  and,  as  a  consequence, 
no  form  at  all,  is  essential  to  the  idea  of  a  church, 
we  reply  by  saying  that  there  is  no  such  question 
as, — What  is  a  true  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  ? 

Books  have  been  written  about  it,  but  they  may 
as  well  have  been  written  on  the  question.  Where 
does  the  red  ray  end  and  the  orange  ray  begin  in 
the  common  spectrum  ?  Indeed  there  are  multitudes 
of  questions,  and,  of  course,  multitudes  of  meanings 
in  the  inquiry, — What  is  a  true  church  of  Christ .? 
In  one  sense  it  means.  What  is  the  church  that 
Christ  organized  ?  What  is  that  form  of  govern- 
ment which  He  left,  just  as  He  left  a  form  of  Bap- 
tism and  a  form  for  the  administration  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist?  In  this  sense  there  is  but  one  church. 
In  this  sense  I  fear  there  is  no  church.  In  this 
sense  each  particular  organization  arrogates  its  own. 
And  all  the  marks  of  the  church  ;  its  unity,  for 
there  is  but  one  such  church  ;  its  catholicity,  for  all 
should  belong  to  it ;  its  holiness,  for  it  is  no  true 
church  if  it  has  no  holiness  at  all ; — these  marks, 
which  are  not  Scriptural,  which  are  not  definite, 
which  are  of  no  practical  authority,  and  which  belong 


Chap.  YIL]  TJic  Question ^  What  is  a  True  Church}  259 

to  no  question  at  all  in  any  usual  sense,  fit  or  do 
not  fit,  just  as  it  may  happen  that  we  have  this 
question  or  that  under  the  form  of  enquiry  that  we 
may  be  pressing  at  the  time. 

A  true  Christian, — there  there  is  a  different 
part  of  speech.  There  there  are  marks  and  limits. 
There  there  is  a  settled  boundary.  A  man  is  either 
lost  or  saved  ;  and  there  it  is  at  each  conscious  in- 
stant. But  the  moment  one  point  is  settled,  viz., 
What  organism  did  Christ  found  on  the  earth  "i  then 
all  splits  up  into  parts.  It  is  no  more  one  broad 
inquiry, — What  is  a  true  church  of  Christ  "i  but  a 
question  of  different  degrees  ;  nay,  a  question  of 
different  acts.  It  is  really  asking, — With  whom  may 
I  hold  communion  .-*  and  when  that  becomes  the 
point,  it  is  settled  in  different  ways. 

Hence  really  there  are  different  boundaries  :  for 
ministers,  a  very  narrow  one.  Is  the  Methodist  a 
true  church  of  Christ .''  I  say.  No.  We  will  not  ac- 
cept her  Councils.  But  you  meet  me  in  a  different 
mood  and  I  answer, — Yes.  It  all  depends  on  what 
you  want  to  know.  Is  she  a  church  from  which  I 
can  take  sermons  }  Yes,  certainly.  From  which  I 
can  take  baptisms  }  Unquestionably  I  can.  From 
which  I  can  receive  members }  Undoubtedly. 
What  do  you  mean  then  .?  Of  course  you  mean  to 
ask  all  these  questions  in  a  single  one.  But  as 
unfortunately  they  each  admit  of  a  distinct  reply, 
your  question  is  not  a  good  one.  There  is  no  true 
Church  of  Christ.  His  body  might  be  so  described, 
or    the    Papacy   might    be    so    imagined,    or    my 


26o  Fetich  in  Order.  [Book  VI. 

Presbytery  might  be  so  believed,  but  under  the 
working  definition  of  the  word  that  question,  as 
usually  pronounced,  is  utterly  misleading  as  to  its 
full  solution. 

And  why  do  we  need  it } 

I  ask,  Is  this  the  City  of  London }  A  stranger 
tells  me.  Yes.  A  listener  instantly  denies  it,  and 
tells  me.  No.  What  do  they  all  mean }  They 
plunge  into  a  heated  quarrel.  What  is  the  diffi- 
culty }  The  difficulty  is  that  I  asked  what  is  not  a 
question.  Am  I  out  in  the  country,  or  am  I  yet 
got  into  the  town  1  Here  are  the  gas  lights,  but 
then  not  yet  the  municipal  control.  What  did  I 
mean }  Besides  this  is  not  London  at  all.  It  would 
be  Westminster,  even  if  I  had  got  into  the  limits. 
Which  all  means  that  there  is  no  such  City  as  Lon- 
don ;  that  is,  that  I  can  quarrel  about  it  to  any  con- 
ceivable length  :  that  is,  that  if  I  am  in  a  practicable 
frame,  I  can  utter  many  a  sentence  about  it,  and 
talk  of  the  City  of  London,  and  be  well  understood  ; 
but  when  I  begin  a  polemic  the  language  immediately 
fails.  I  must  drop  these  broad  terms,  for  they  are 
never  technical.  I  must  settle  each  question  by 
itself.  Is  the  Quaker  a  true  church  t  No.  I 
will  not  settle  its  ministers.  Nevertheless,  is  it  a 
true  church  }  Yes,  I  will  gladly  listen  to  their 
preaching.  Why }  is  it  a  true  church  .'*  No,  for  it 
does  not  respect  the  sacraments.  Yet  it  must  be  a 
true  church,  for  what  singular  piety  in  its  commun- 
ion !  Thus  we  battle  the  watch,  though  we  find 
that  the  Quakers  themselves  believe  in  no  organ- 


Chap.  VII.]  TJic  Qitestioji,  What  is  a  Tnic  Church}  261 

ized  church,  and  do  not  contend  that  theirs  is  an 
EKKlTjaia  at  all ! 

The  church  of  God  is  precisely  like  the  ordin- 
ance of  baptism  ;  we  are  bound  to  administer  it. 
We  are  bound  to  find  out  its  form.  If  it  varies  a 
little,  we  may  or  may  not  accept  it.  It  is  a  matter 
of  judgment.  There  is  a  true  church,  and  there  is 
a  true  baptism.  They  have  been  instituted  by 
Christ.  Baptism  is  external,  and  is  by  sprinkling. 
The  church  is  external,  and  is  presbytery.  This  is 
my  firm  belief  Is  any  other  church  true  ?  No. 
Is  any  other  church  true  ?  Yes.  It  depends  on 
what  you  mean.  You  have  propounded  questions 
that  are  not  framed  so  in  the  language  of  holy  writ. 
And  if  you  go  all  the  distance  of  Dr.  Hodge,  and 
tell  me.  The  Church  is  the  body  of  Christ,  I  reply 
that  baptism  is  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit ;  but  if 
baptism  thus  answering  as  a  trope  does  not  thereby 
cease  to  be  a  ceremony,  so  the  church  must  be 
bodily  set  up  ;  and  to  be  thus  set  up,  it  must  pos- 
sess a  structural  form,  and  that  form  must  be 
obligatory  upon  men  like  the  form  of  baptism. 


THE     END 


Theological  Seminary-Speer  Lil 


1    1012  01088  3371 


Date  Due                        | 

^MJilfy. 

^k  f  f 

i 

lUikiLJLgJgk 

1975 

i 

! 

•^ 

1 

Tt"^^"''^ 

*^ 

! 
1 

^y-4'- 

i__J 1 

^ 

